Detailed document shows police tracked killer through victim’s cellphone, convict confessed to magistrate
Sana Yousaf was shot dead for rejecting a man’s advances. Photo: File
ISLAMABAD:
Details of the judgment convicting Umar Hayat of the murder of 17-year-old Sana Yousaf were revealed on Wednesday, revealing that he had confessed before a magistrate to killing the teenage TikToker after she refused to meet him, and that police had traced him through a contact registered as “Kaka” on the victim’s mobile phone.
An additional sessions court in Islamabad on Tuesday sentenced Hayat to death for Sana’s murder. The social media influencer was shot dead at her home in Sector G-13/1 in June 2025, after she refused to meet the convict. Justice Muhammad Afzal Majoka announced the verdict, convicting Hayat, son of Amjad Javed, a resident of Jaranwala, Faisalabad, for murder, robbery, trespass and possession of stolen goods.
The court found that the prosecution had produced “overwhelming evidence” against the convict and ruled that he did not deserve any leniency.
According to the judgment, on the afternoon of June 2, Sana was at home with her mother Farzana Yousaf and aunt Latifa Shah. His father, Yousaf Hassan, had gone out of the house to work while his younger brother went to Chitral.
Around 5 p.m., Hayat entered the house armed with a 30-caliber pistol. He went straight to Sana’s bedroom and shot her twice in the chest. After the shooting, he took the victim’s cell phone and fled.
The commotion brought neighbors into the street and Sana was rushed to KRL Hospital in a neighbor’s vehicle, where she was pronounced dead. She then transferred to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences.
The autopsy recorded two entry wounds and two exit wounds on Sana’s chest and back. The cause of death was determined to be cardiopulmonary arrest resulting from a gunshot wound to the chest, causing damage to vital organs, particularly the heart and lungs.
Meanwhile, the time from injury to death, according to the autopsy, was about two to three minutes.
The autopsy report concluded that all injuries were ante-mortem in nature and “sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course”.
Read: Sana Yousaf murder case: parents welcome court verdict and call for public hanging of convict
The FIR, registered at Sumbul police station, initially did not name any suspects. Investigating Officer (IO) Fakhar Abbas then began to piece together the identity of the accused through the victim’s mobile phone, which was recovered from his room during an on-site inspection.
On examining the phone, the IO found a contact registered as ‘Kaka’. It was revealed that the number holder had come to Islamabad in an attempt to meet Sana, who did not respond to him. Location data placed the number in sector G-14 at 9:30 p.m. on the day of the murder, and the number was registered to Hayat.
The IO, along with a police team, reached Jaranwala. Arriving at Amin Park, a boy met them on the street and, when asked his name, identified himself as Hayat. The victim’s missing cell phone was recovered at the scene and he was formally arrested on June 3.
The court later heard testimony from two independent witnesses who were instrumental in establishing Hayat’s movements on the day of the murder.
Ahmad Khan, who runs a car rental business at G-11 Markaz, Islamabad, said that around 2:30 p.m. on June 2, a young man came to his office, introduced himself as Umar Hayat and asked for a vehicle for rent. A black Toyota Fortuner accompanied by driver Muhammad Wakeel was handed over to the convict.
Wakeel said he drove Hayat towards G-13/1, where he asked Wakeel to stop the vehicle and continued on foot. The condemned man then returned to the vehicle around 5:15 p.m., worried. He directed the driver to the service road G-13/1, near the railway bridge, where he stopped the vehicle under the pretext of responding to a call and walked towards the bushes.
When he returned, he asked the driver to drop him at Chungi, from where he had left. It was under this same railway bridge that the murder weapon – a 30 caliber pistol – was later found under the direction of Hayat.
Learn more: Our grief is not justice: the rot that killed Sana Yousaf never hid
On June 23, the convict expressed the wish to make a statement before a magistrate. He was produced before the deputy commissioner, who recorded his confession under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In his confession, he said that he is also a TikToker and follows Sana on social media.
He said he had come from Jaranwala to Islamabad to meet her, but she refused to see him, which caused him great distress. Faced with this refusal, he went to Sana’s home and, in the presence of two women, fired two shots, recovered Sana’s cell phone and fled.
Hayat concluded his statement by saying: “I made a very serious mistake in killing Sana Yousaf. I am remorseful for my crime of killing a flower-like girl in the most brutal way. My conscience reproaches me at every moment.”
The convict later recanted his confession, claiming he had been falsely implicated.
The court, however, noted that Hayat had not produced any evidence to show that the confession was made under duress and that under Section 91 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Ordinance, 1984, a confession recorded in accordance with law before a magistrate is presumed to be true.
Furthermore, the court found that the prosecution had built its case on mutually corroborating evidence. According to the judgment, the prosecution “has produced overwhelming evidence against the accused.”
Eyewitness accounts were corroborated while fingerprints taken from a mirror inside the victim’s bedroom by the forensic team were compared, via NADRA records, to Hayat’s national identity card. Additionally, the firearms report confirmed that spent cartridges recovered from the scene were fired from the same 30 caliber pistol recovered from Hayat Point.
The victim’s mobile phone, recovered from the accused at the time of his arrest, was also identified by his father.
Justice Majoka convicted Hayat under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), ordering death by hanging for Qatl-e-Amd (intentional murder) and ordering compensation of Rs 2,00,000 payable to Sana’s heirs under Section 544-A of the CrPC.
Under Section 392 of the PPC, relating to the charge of robbery, Hayat was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs 200,000. Failure to pay the fine will result in an additional two months of imprisonment.
Under Section 411 of the PPC, which relates to stolen property, the convict was sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 100,000, with one month’s simple imprisonment in case of non-payment.
Read also: ‘We will not forget you’
Finally, regarding the charge of trespass, the court sentenced Hayat under Section 449 of the PPC to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 200,000, and a further two months imprisonment in case of non-payment.
According to the judgment, all the sentences are to be served concurrently while the death sentence is subject to confirmation by the Islamabad High Court, to which the reference for murder has been sent under Section 374 of the CrPC. The convicted person was also informed of his right to appeal within 30 days.
The court observed in the judgment, “The accused, for not having met the deceased, committed the murder of an innocent girl aged about seventeen years. There are no mitigating circumstances, so the accused deserves no leniency. »
