مضمون کا ماخذ : Table games
Zahir Jaffer challenges his death sentence in SC
Zahir Jaffer has filed an appeal in the apex court against his death sentence, contending that the trial and high court could not identify the fundamental flaws in the First Information Report (FIR) and that their verdicts were based on “erroneous appreciation of evidence”. On July 20, 2021, Noor Mukadam was found brutally murdered in […]
Zahir Jaffer has filed an appeal in the apex court against his death sentence, contending that the trial and high court could not identify the fundamental flaws in the First Information Report (FIR) and that their verdicts were based on “erroneous appreciation of evidence”. On July 20, 2021, Noor Mukadam was found brutally murdered in Islamabad’s upscale F-7/4 sector. Following the discovery of her body, Jaffer was arrested as the prime suspect in the case.
A trial court in Islamabad on February 24, 2022 sentenced Jaffer to death for murdering Noor Mukadam. The court also found Jaffer guilty of rape and handed over 25 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs200,000. A division bench of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) on March 14 upheld Jaffar’s death sentence while also converting his life imprisonment into a death sentence. The convict has now filed an appeal against the IHC order through Salman Safdar advocate, contending that the petitioner and his family are aggrieved with the media trial and the constant pressure “that was visibly present during the investigation stage” and subsequently continued during Jaffer’s trial. “On the flimsiest of charges, innocent people including old parents were prosecuted with Malafide intent. The social media hype clearly resulted in miscarriage of justice as the appellant’s trial was conducted in clear violation of Article 10 A of the Constitution which guarantees fair trial,” it said.
The petition added that the case was prejudiced against Zahir because he could not effectively defend himself or join the criminal investigation, he was unable to understand and comprehend the allegations against him and the charges framed, he was not able to engage a counsel of his choice, he could not lead the defence evidence, the courts did not rule out his mental fitness to stand trial and no thorough examination was carried out by mental health specialists.
