مضمون کا ماخذ : estratégias dupla sena
IHC questions police assumptions in Noor Mukadam murder case
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday heard the appeals of the Noor Mukadam murder case by lawyers of complainant former Pakistani ambassador Shaukat Ali Mukadam and accused Zahir Jaffar. Earlier this year, convict Zahir Jaffar – the main accused in the case – was sentenced to death and fined to pay Rs500,000 as compensation […]
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday heard the appeals of the Noor Mukadam murder case by lawyers of complainant former Pakistani ambassador Shaukat Ali Mukadam and accused Zahir Jaffar.
Earlier this year, convict Zahir Jaffar – the main accused in the case – was sentenced to death and fined to pay Rs500,000 as compensation to the heirs of the deceased as required under Section 544-A of the Pakistan Penal Code. A day earlier, the IHC conducted a combined hearing of two appeals in the case. One hearing was against the death sentence handed out to convict Zahir Jaffar, while the other – filed by Noor’s father – was against the acquittal of convicts and accused, as well as an increase in their sentences.
Thursday’s hearing was presided over by Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Ijazul Ahsan. During the hearing, the court questioned the logic behind police ignoring basic facts surrounding the case.
Accused Zahir Jaffar’s lawyer Usman Khosa said that he has filed a petition for a medical examination on behalf of his client. The judge said that he wants to read the first information report (FIR) which has contradictions in the prosecution’s statement.
Were the mobile phones of complainant Shaukat Mukadam and Zahir Jaffer taken at the time of investigation, the court asked. At this, the complainant̵7;s lawyer said that his mobile phone was not taken but only Zahir’s phone was seized. Khosa said that Shaukat told about receiving a WhatsApp call first time during the cross-examination. The court inquired what will happen if the complainant has given a wrong statement. Zahir’s lawyer said the case was based on a connection made through a phone call between the complainant and the accused. At this, the court said that Zahir called Shaukat and it was not Shaukat who called Zahir. The court instructed the complainant̵7;s lawyer to tell whether Noor called her father on July 19 or not.
Khosa said that Shaukat informed about his daughter missing on July 18 and not on July 19. According to the call detail record (CDR), Noor was found in Lahore, not Islamabad.
“It is possible that the girl did not rightly inform her father,” Justice Farooq remarked.
Zahir’s lawyer said that his client had a flight on July 19, however, he came back as soon as he left the house because the girl might have asked him to stop for her. At this, Justice Farooq told the lawyer that he is making things up. “What are you trying to tell by saying that he came back one minute after he left in the taxi for his flight?” the court inquired. “I am trying to say that Zahir Jaffer had no plans on killing,” lawyer Khosa said. The lawyer said that the victim called Zahir six times while travelling from Naval Anchorage to F-7 which he did not attend. “The first call was made from Naval Anchorage, the others were made while she was on her way and the last one was made outside Zahir Jaffar’s home,” the lawyer remarked.
Khosa said that Zahir was arrested at 9:20 while the FIR states that the incident took place at 10:00. At this, Shaukat̵7;s lawyer said that he was not arrested by the police at that time.
Justice Farooq inquired when did the police reach the site of the incident.
“The policeman informed that they reached at 9:30,” informed Zahir’s lawyer. “How did the incident take place at 10 then?” asked Justice Farooq.
The court inquired whether the victim had torture marks on her body at the time of post-mortem. At this, Khosa replied that she had marks on her body, however, she might have gotten them from jumping. The court adjourned the hearing against Zahir’s sentence till Tuesday.
