On Thursday (7 October), a local court in Islamabad set the date for the indictment of the accused in the Noor Mukadam murder case for October 14, rejecting the accused’s appeal for digital evidence.
Ata Rabbani, an Additional Sessions Judge, presided over the hearing. Zahir Jaffer, the primary accused, and six others were brought before the court.
Zahir informed the court that he wanted to approach the rostrum and say “I apologize” during the hearing.
Read also: Zahir Jaffer raped and tortured Noor Mukadam prior to murder: forensic reports
The judge informed the accused that he will be heard throughout the trial and directed the police to return him to the Bakshi Khana, a temporary detention facility within the district courts.
The sessions court had deferred the indictment of 12 suspects in the murder case for a day earlier after the accused submitted new petitions alleging that they had not been presented with complete evidence.
The police produced the main accused:
- Zahir Zakir Jaffer.
- Zakir Jaffer and Ismat Adamjee.
- CEO of Therapy Works Tahir Zahoor.
- Six other employees.
Read also: Noor Mukadam case: Owner of Therapy Works along with 5 others arrested
The superior judge questioned Zakir about obtaining a lawyer at the hearing. “Now that the evidence is presented, you need a lawyer. Is Rizwan Abbasi your lawyer?” the judge inquired.
Zahir in response to the inquiry made by the judge said, “I do not know maybe my brother has hired one.”
Separately, the parents applied to the Supreme Court for post-arrest bail after their bail application was denied by the IHC last week. Through their lawyer Khawaja Haris, Zakir and Asmat had filed two different petitions before the Supreme Court.
It is important to note that Zahir and Asmat are being held in police custody for “aiding and abetting” their son in Noor Mukadam’s murder.
According to the IHC’s order, the parents were aware that Zahir Jaffer had kidnapped Noor but did not report it to the authorities. According to the court’s verdict, the family’s watchman indicated that he had informed Zakir Jaffar about the situation.
According to the IHC judgment, Zahir Jaffar stated in his statement that he had notified his father prior to the murder; the trial court will decide whether his statement is acceptable.
The court held that evidence of direct assistance in aiding and abetting a crime cannot be applied universally. The court recognized that aiding and abetting can also be indirect and that in such cases, factual evidence is sufficient.
