n Monday, March 13, a verdict reserved by the Islamabad High Court in December 2022 was announced in open Court. Zahir Jaffer’s conviction by the trial court was upheld for the offences of murder, rape, abduction and illegal confinement. In terms of rape, the punishment of imprisonment for 25 years was enhanced to the death penalty. Conviction of Jan Muhammad, a gardener, and Muhammad Iftikhar, a security guard, was maintained for the offence of abetment in the abduction of the victim.

Sometimes a single dent in the prosecution’s case can shatter the whole case. In arguing his case, the counsel for the principal convict, had a two-fold strategy – to create doubt in the prosecution’s case story – and to seek reduction in the quantum of sentence in case the conviction was upheld.

The court disapproved of what it called efforts by the counsel to malign the victim’s character. With regard to the charge of abduction, the counsel said that the victim was known to have gone to the convict’s house by her own free will. The court observed then that the offence of abduction was still made out as when she tried to exit the house, she was restrained from doing so and dragged back into the house. The judgment held that if a person is forcibly moved for as little as one step, it still constitutes the offence of abduction.

Some discrepancies in the evidence produced by the prosecution were also pointed out. The investigation process was alleged to have been carried out in a defective way. It was pointed out that some of the police witnesses had made contradictory statements regarding the time of arrival of the police officers at the crime scene.

The court observed that the discrepancies might have arisen from an effort by some of the policemen to extend a favour to the accused. The judge held that defective investigation, when other evidence of guilt is present on the record, is not enough reason to throw out the prosecution case. A Supreme Court judgment was cited in this regard. It read:

“If his clothes were not taken in possession by the Investigating Officer, then it reflected on his working and lethargy. It could not cause any harm to the prosecution case.”

The counsel for the convict pointed out that the post mortem report was signed by a doctor other than the one who had carried out the autopsy. 

The medical evidence suggested that the cause of death was a failure of blood supply to the brain due to the separation of the head from the body. The court observed that the medical evidence is corroborative with the prosecution’s case. The counsel for the convict pointed out that the post mortem report was signed by a doctor other than the one who had conducted the autopsy. This casts doubts on the veracity of the evidence on record. The judgment observed that the evidentiary value of the medical opinion is merely corroborative. As such, it was held, that this could not be the sole basis for acquittal.

While it is settled law that even a shadow of doubt in the prosecution’s case is enough to extend the right of acquittal to the accused, in many cases minor discrepancies in a criminal case have been ruled insufficient to adversely affect the prosecution’s case as long as they do not hamper the salient features of the case.

The main evidence in the case was the DVR – containing the CCTV footage of the convict’s house. The use of modern devices to form part of the evidence has been provided for in Article 164 of the Qanoon-i-Shahadat, 1984. It has been endorsed by the Supreme Court in some recent judgments while laying out certain guidelines. Legal formalities in this regard were regarded to have been fulfilled. The footage was played by the trial court in the presence of the lawyers only. The court held that the footage made it clear that the victim was last seen with the accused while she was being dragged into his house.

The court held that the prosecution had produced enough evidence to prove that the murder was committed by Zahir Jaffer. It said the defence had failed to refute the elemental evidence brought forward by the prosecution or to otherwise prove that the body was not recovered from the room of the convict.

The counsel’s plea for converting the death sentence into life imprisonment on account of the mitigating circumstances and on the basis that no motive was attributed by the prosecution was dismissed by the court. It was held that no mitigating circumstances existed. The court referred to precedents set by the Supreme Court in holding that where no motive is alleged by the prosecution, it is up to the court’s discretion to still award the death sentence.

Appeals filed against the acquittal of the CEO of Therapy Works and its employees, parents of Zahir Jaffer, and the cook, Muhammad Jameel, were dismissed on the basis that no evidence was available on record to prove their involvement in the said offences.