An additional note in the judgment upheld the conviction and presented the crime as symptomatic of a change in social behavior.
ISLAMABAD:
Justice Ali Baqar Najafi called the Noor Mukadam murder case a product of a “vice” taking root in society, which he termed a “living relationship” – apparently referring to living relationships.
His remarks, made in a companion note to the Supreme Court’s ruling and released Wednesday, introduced a new moral layer to one of the nation’s most gruesome and closely scrutinized criminal cases.
The additional note upheld the conviction and presented the crime as symptomatic of a change in social behavior.
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 high society which we call ‘living relationship.’ [sic]”, claiming that such arrangements disregard “societal constraints” and “defy not only the law of the land but also personal law” under Sharia law.
He went further, describing participation in such a relationship as “a direct revolt against Allah Almighty”, and urged young Pakistanis to think about its “horrible consequences, as in the present case, which is also a topic of discussion for social reformists in their circles”.
The judge also found there were “no mitigating circumstances” for Zahir’s actions, rejecting what the defense had attempted to characterize as errors in the prosecution’s case.
He wrote that “minor discrepancies in the timing of the event, delay in the autopsy, absence of fingerprints on the knife but which match the applicant’s DNA, minor delay in filing 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 attached to the corpse of Noor Mukadam, and the other end attached to petitioner’s neck.
Justice Najafi also addressed the delay in registering the FIR at 11:30 p.m., around two hours after the murder. He noted that the statement by Noor’s father, retired diplomat Shaukat Mukadam, on “receiving information” [ ] the murder of his daughter is well corroborated.”
He noted that such a delay was entirely understandable. “It is natural that after reaching the place of occurrence, the complainant, being the real father of the victim, needed some time and extraordinary courage to absorb the extreme shock of his life and then draft the complaint for registration of FIR.”
He also dismissed concerns about the timing of the autopsy, observing that although the autopsy took place eight to nine hours after death, “this approximately 12-hour delay in the autopsy is not fatal.”
Among the evidence he highlighted was CCTV footage from the residence, which showed Noor jumping out of a window and “limping towards the main door to escape”, only to discover that guard Mohammad Iftikhar had locked it.
The note says that Zahir “snatched the cell phone from [the] deceased, locked her in the outside cabin”, then opened it to physically attack her, because the gardener Muhammad Jan “made no effort to stop her”.
“She was then taken back to the petitioner’s house, which was her last sight in the CCTV footage. The unseen event was captured by the camera eye and the scene was recorded.”
“It was not just seeing the petitioner (Zahir) with the deceased (Noor) before the unnatural death caused in the most brutal manner, but there is circumstantial evidence which connects the petitioner with the crime,” Justice Najafi remarked.
“Furthermore, the said mobile phone snatched by the petitioner had been recovered from his possession through a recovery note.”
The judge rejected Zahir’s attempt to attribute the killing to drug use, writing that his assertion was “found to be incorrect” because medical reports detected no intoxicants in either party, and video surveillance showed no “guests at the drug party.”
He also rejected the insanity plea, noting “no evidence in the record that petitioner had a habit of consulting a psychiatrist, therapist, or consuming any drug in the absence of which, or because of which, he became enraged and lost his mind.”
The victim blames
Judge Najafi’s presentation of the crime as a symptom of moral decadence has drawn criticism from legal circles as well as civil society.
Commenting on Justice Najfi’s observations, lawyer Maha Raja said it was a “sad state of affairs unfortunately portrayed at the highest levels of justice”.
Instead of preaching to society, the judiciary must correct its course, she added.
“Noor Mukadam symbolizes a society that unfortunately succumbs to these horrible justifications of an evaporating legal system that fails to combat the injustices of society and throws itself into victim blaming,” she lamented.
