Additional note in judgment upheld conviction, framed crime as symptomatic of changing social behaviour
LHC’s Justice Ali Baqar Najafi. PHOTO: FILE
ISLAMABAD:
Justice Ali Baqar Najafi has characterised the Noor Mukadam murder case as the product of a “vice” taking root in society, which he termed a “living relationship” – apparently referring to live-in relationships.
His remarks, made in an additional note to the Supreme Court’s judgment and published on Wednesday, introduced a new moral layer to one of the nation’s most widely scrutinised and horrific criminal cases.
The additional note upheld the conviction and framed the crime as symptomatic of changing social behaviour.
Justice Najafi, who was recently elevated to the newly constituted Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), wrote that “the present case is a direct result of a vice spreading in the upper society which we know as ‘living relationship’ [sic]”, asserting that such arrangements disregard “societal 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 younger Pakistanis to reflect on its “horrible consequences, such as in the present case, which is also a topic for the social reformist to discuss in their circles”.
The judge also held that there were “no mitigating circumstances” for Zahir’s actions, dismissing what the defence had attempted to frame as errors in the prosecution’s case.
He wrote that “minor discrepancies in the time of occurrence, the delay in postmortem, absence of the finger prints on the knife but matched with the DNA of the petitioner, minor delay in lodging the first information would not affect the credibility of the prosecution 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 11:30pm, roughly two hours after the murder. He noted that the statement of Noor’s father, retired diplomat Shaukat Mukadam, on “receiving the information [ ] about the murder of his daughter is well corroborated”.
He observed that such a delay was eminently understandable. “It is natural that after reaching the place of occurrence, the complainant being the real father of the victim required some time and extraordinary nerves to absorb the extreme shock of his life and then draft the complaint for registration of FIR.”
He similarly dismissed concerns over the postmortem timing, observing that although the autopsy took place eight to nine hours after death, “This delay of conducting postmortem of about 12 hours is not fatal”.
Among the evidence he highlighted was CCTV footage from the residence, which captured Noor leaping from a window and “came limping towards main gate to escape”, only to find watchman Mohammad Iftikhar had locked it.
The note recounts that Zahir “snatched the mobile phone of [the] deceased, locked her in the outer cabin”, later opening it to physically assault her, as gardener Muhammad Jan “did not make any effort to stop” him.
“She was then dragged back into the house of the petitioner which was her last glimpse in the CCTV footages. The unseen occurrence the eye of camera and the scene was recorded.”
“It was not mere seeing the petitioner (Zahir) with the deceased (Noor) before the unnatural death caused in most brutal manner, but there are circumstantial evidence which connect the petitioner with crime,” Justice Najafi remarked.
“Besides, the said snatched mobile phone by the petitioner had been recovered from his possession vide recovery memo.”
The judge rejected Zahir’s attempt to blame the killing on drug consumption, writing that his claim was “found incorrect” as medical reports detected no intoxicants in either party, nor did CCTV show any “guest of drug party”.
He likewise dismissed the insanity plea, noting “no evidence on record that the petitioner used to consult any psychiatrist, therapy workers or consume any drug in the absence of which, or due to which, he became infurious and went out of mind”.
Victim blaming
Justice Najafi’s framing of the crime as a symptom of moral decay generated criticism from legal quarters as well as from civil society.
Commenting on Justice Najfi’s observations, Advocate Maha Raja said that this was “a sad state of affairs depicted unfortunately in the highest echelons of justice”.
Instead of giving sermons to society, the judiciary needs to correct its course, she added.
“Noor Mukadam symbolises a society which is unfortunately succumbing to these horrendous justifications for an evaporating legal system which fails to fortify its fist against injustices in the society and jumps at victim blaming,” she lamented.
