August 22, 2026
By Xari Jalil
ISLAMABAD
The Supreme Court has dismissed a review petition filed by Zahir Zakir Jaffar challenging the death sentence awarded to him for the murder of Noor Mukadam, holding that he had failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or any circumstance warranting interference with the sentence.
A three-member bench comprising Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Salahuddin Panhwar and Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim dismissed Criminal Review Petition No. 89 of 2025 on June 4, 2026, refusing to reopen the court’s earlier judgment that had maintained Jaffar’s conviction and death sentence for murder while converting his death sentence for rape to life imprisonment.
The review petition arose from the Supreme Court’s May 20, 2025 judgment, through which the court had maintained Jaffar’s conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). His conviction under Section 376(1) PPC for rape was maintained, but the death sentence for that offence was converted to life imprisonment. His conviction and sentence under Section 364 PPC were set aside, while his conviction and sentence under Section 342 PPC were maintained.
Mental illness plea rejected
At the hearing of the review petition, Jaffar’s counsel, Khawaja Haris Ahmed, confined his arguments to the question of sentence and did not challenge the conviction on merits.
He argued that even if the conviction was maintained, the death penalty should be reduced to life imprisonment because of mitigating circumstances, principally Jaffar’s alleged mental illness. According to the defence, Jaffar had previously raised the issue before the trial court under Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), but no meaningful inquiry had been conducted into whether he possessed the mental capacity to understand the proceedings and effectively defend himself.
The defence relied particularly on a January 14, 2022 letter from Dr Philip Hopley, a consultant in general adult and forensic psychiatry in London. The letter stated that Jaffar had been examined on April 21, 2015 and had been found to be suffering from a drug-induced psychotic episode. The defence argued that the issue of his mental condition was relevant both to the validity of the trial and to his criminal culpability and sentence.
The Supreme Court, however, found the plea unsubstantiated.
The bench noted that Jaffar’s mental illness plea had not found favour with the trial court, Islamabad High Court or the Supreme Court when it previously decided his criminal petition.
It relied, among other things, on Jaffar’s statement under Section 342 CrPC, observing that he had answered questions in a coherent and detailed manner and demonstrated an understanding of the allegations and prosecution evidence.
The court also examined the 2015 psychiatric assessment relied upon by the defence. It noted that the document recorded that Jaffar had been referred for psychological treatment and had undergone approximately six months of therapy, after which he had made a full recovery.
The court further pointed out that the alleged offence occurred on July 20, 2021, and that the defence had produced no contemporaneous, continuous or independent medical record establishing that Jaffar remained under psychiatric treatment or suffered from mental incapacity at the time of the offence or during the trial.
“[T]he solitary document pertaining to a remote period of time” could not, the court held, by itself establish legal unsoundness of mind or diminished responsibility, particularly as the document had not been proved through its author or another competent witness.
The court said neither Jaffar’s conduct during the trial nor his interaction with the court indicated an abnormality that would have required an inquiry into mental incapacity.
“In the absence of cogent, reliable, and contemporaneous medical evidence” establishing mental incapacity, the bench said it could not conclude that Jaffar had been suffering from a mental illness that impaired his ability to understand the proceedings, instruct his counsel or defend himself.
Court rejects fair-trial argument
The bench also rejected the argument that Jaffar had been denied a fair trial because he was represented by a state-appointed lawyer.
The court acknowledged that counsel had been appointed for Jaffar at state expense, but said this had become necessary because he had not engaged counsel of his own choice despite being given the opportunity.
The judgment noted that Jaffar’s co-accused parents, who were being tried jointly with him, had engaged private lawyers at their own expense. The mere fact that Jaffar was represented by state-appointed counsel therefore could not, in itself, amount to denial of his constitutional right to a fair trial.
The court found that the appointed counsel had remained present throughout the proceedings and actively participated in the trial, alongside another senior counsel. All prosecution witnesses had been thoroughly cross-examined on Jaffar’s behalf, and the defence had failed to identify any specific prejudice caused by the representation.
The bench consequently held that the record showed Jaffar had been given a full opportunity to defend himself and that the procedural safeguards required by law had been observed.
Supreme Court upholds use of forensic reports
The defence had also challenged the admissibility of forensic reports relied upon by the prosecution, arguing that the forensic scientists who prepared them had not appeared as witnesses.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting first that no such objection had been raised when the reports were tendered and exhibited before the trial court or during final arguments.
The bench also considered an amendment to Section 510 CrPC introduced through the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2022. Before the amendment, the provision did not expressly include forensic scientists among experts whose reports could be used in evidence without calling their makers as witnesses. The amendment expressly added forensic scientists to that category.
The court held that the amendment was procedural rather than substantive. It did not create a new offence, increase punishment, alter the ingredients of an offence or impose an additional burden on the prosecution. Instead, it concerned the mode of proof and manner in which expert evidence could be received.
Because the amendment was procedural, the court held that it could operate retrospectively in proceedings that were pending when it came into force, provided no vested or substantive right was adversely affected.
The court noted that Jaffar’s appeal was still pending when the 2022 amendment came into force and that an appeal is a continuation of the trial. The amended Section 510 could therefore be applied to the pending appeal even though the trial itself had concluded before the amendment.
The bench further observed that Jaffar had never applied to the trial or appellate court for the forensic expert to be summoned and cross-examined.
It held that he could not raise the objection for the first time in review proceedings, saying that doing so would effectively reopen an issue that had not been raised when the case was finally adjudicated.
Court cites “shocking degree of brutality”
In rejecting the plea for leniency, the Supreme Court made strong observations about the nature of the crime.
The bench said Jaffar had been convicted of a “most heinous and gruesome offence” in which Noor Mukadam was first raped and thereafter murdered.
The court said the record, as concurrently appreciated by the lower courts and affirmed by the Supreme Court, revealed a “shocking degree of brutality” in the commission of the crime. It said the circumstances surrounding the offence, the manner in which it was carried out and Jaffar’s conduct did not disclose any mitigating circumstance capable of diminishing his culpability or justifying a lesser sentence.
“The aggravating features of the case overwhelmingly outweigh any circumstance urged in mitigation,” the judgment said.
The court consequently found no recognized exception that could justify interference with the sentence.
Supreme Court addresses femicide
In an additional portion of the judgment, the bench addressed what it described as a “grave and growing concern” over increasing instances of femicide.
The court said the killing of women should not be viewed simply as isolated or spontaneous acts, describing femicide as the lethal culmination of a systematic, gender-motivated continuum of violence.
Referring to the UNODC and UN Women Statistical Framework for Measuring the Gender-Related Killing of Women and Girls, the judgment said approximately 50,000 women and girls were killed in 2024 by an intimate partner or immediate family member.
The court noted that research on intimate-partner violence had identified behaviours including coercive control, stalking and psychological terror as risk factors preceding lethal escalation. It also rejected the conventional assumption that women are necessarily safest within domestic settings, observing that the private sphere can instead be where women are most vulnerable to violence and abuse.
The bench further invoked the protection afforded to women under Islam and said Pakistan’s status as an Islamic Republic imposed a constitutional duty to protect women’s rights, honour and sanctity.
The court said society should not witness an escalation in femicide cases but should instead demonstrate exemplary protection of women.
The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed Jaffar’s review petition as devoid of merit and refused leave, holding that no ground for review had been established.
The judgment was approved for reporting in Islamabad on June 4, 2026.