An additional note in the sentencing confirmed the conviction and framed the crime as symptomatic of a change in social behavior.
ISLAMABAD:
Judge Ali Baqar Najafi has characterized the Noor Mukadam murder case as the product of a “vice” taking root in society, which he called a “living relationship”, apparently referring to cohabitation relationships.
His comments, made in an addendum to the Supreme Court ruling and published Wednesday, introduced a new moral layer to one of the country’s most gruesome and scrutinized criminal cases.
The additional note confirmed the conviction and framed the crime as symptomatic of a change in social behavior.
Judge Najafi, who was recently elevated to the newly constituted Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), wrote that “the present case is the direct result of a vice that is spreading in high society and which we know as ‘living relationship.’ [sic]”, stating that such agreements ignore “social compulsions” and “defy not only the law of the land but also the personal law” under Sharia.
He went further, describing participation in such a relationship as “a direct revolt against Almighty Allah”, and urged Pakistani youth to reflect on its “horrible consequences, as in the present case, which is also an issue that social reformers must discuss in their circles.”
The judge also held that there were no “mitigating circumstances” for Zahir’s actions, dismissing what the defense had attempted to frame as errors in the prosecution’s case.
He wrote that “small discrepancies in the time of occurrence, the delay in the autopsy, the absence of fingerprints on the knife but matching the petitioner’s DNA, a small delay in the presentation of the first information would not affect the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, which had circumstantial evidence”, concluding that “in this case of circumstantial evidence, one end of the rope is found tied with the dead body of Noor Mukadam, and the other end tied with the neck of the petitioner.”
Justice Najafi also addressed the delay in registering the FIR at 11:30 pm, about two hours after the murder. He noted that the statement by Noor’s father, retired diplomat Shaukat Mukadam, about “receiving the information [ ] about the murder of his daughter is well corroborated.
He noted that this delay was very understandable. “It is natural that after reaching the scene of occurrence, the complainant, being the real father of the victim, needed some extraordinary time and nerves to absorb the extreme shock of his life and then write the complaint for registration of FIR.”
Similarly, he dismissed concerns about the timing of the autopsy, noting that although the autopsy was conducted eight to nine hours after death, “this delay of approximately 12 hours in performing the autopsy is not fatal.”
Among the evidence he highlighted was CCTV footage from the residence, which captured Noor jumping from a window and “limping towards the front door to escape”, only to discover that watchman Mohammad Iftikhar had locked it.
The note relates that Zahir “snatched the cell phone from [the] deceased, he locked her in the outside cabin”, later opening it to physically attack her, since the gardener Muhammad Jan “made no effort to stop him”.
“She was then dragged back to the petitioner’s house, which was her last glimpse on the CCTV footage. The unseen event was recorded by the camera’s eye and the scene.”
“It was not simply seeing the petitioner (Zahir) with the deceased (Noor) before the unnatural death caused in the most brutal manner, but there is circumstantial evidence connecting the petitioner with the crime,” Justice Najafi commented.
“Further, the said mobile phone stolen by the petitioner had been recovered from his possession through a recovery memorandum.”
The judge rejected Zahir’s attempt to blame the murder on drug use, writing that his claim was “considered incorrect” as medical reports detected no toxic substances on either party, nor did CCTV show any “guests at the drug party”.
He also dismissed the allegation of insanity, pointing out that “there is no evidence on record that the petitioner used to consult any psychiatrist, therapeutic assistant or consume any drug in the absence of which, or due to which, he became furious and went crazy.”
victim blaming
Judge Najafi’s framing of the crime as a symptom of moral decay drew criticism from both the legal and civil society sectors.
Commenting on Justice Najfi’s remarks, lawyer Maha Raja said it was “a sad situation regrettably described in the highest echelons of justice.”
Instead of lecturing the society, the judiciary needs to correct its course, he added.
“Noor Mukadam symbolizes a society that is sadly succumbing to these horrendous justifications for an evaporating legal system that fails to strengthen its fist against injustices in society and launches into blaming the victims,” he lamented.
