Zahir Zakir Jaffar v. The State

Case Citation and Basic Information

Case Name: Zahir Zakir Jaffar v. The State through Advocate General, Islamabad and connected petitions

Case Number: Criminal Petition Nos. 467, 441, 442, 468, 469 and 485 of 2023

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan

Date of Judgment: 20 May 2025

Bench: Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim and Justice Ali Baqar Najafi

Nature of Case: Criminal petition for leave to appeal arising out of convictions for murder, rape, wrongful confinement and connected offences

Introduction

This case arose from the murder of Noor Mukadam at the residence of Zahir Zakir Jaffar in Islamabad. The judgment is important for two reasons. First, the Supreme Court had to decide whether a death sentence could be maintained when the prosecution case was based mainly on circumstantial evidence and there was no direct eyewitness to the actual killing. Secondly, the case gave the Court an opportunity to discuss the evidentiary value of CCTV footage, DVR recordings, DNA evidence and other modern forensic material. The judgment is therefore not only about the guilt of one accused person. It is also an important decision on how criminal courts in Pakistan should treat digital evidence when it is properly preserved, examined and connected with the facts of the case.

Facts of the Case

The case started from FIR No. 380 dated 20 July 2021, registered at Police Station Kohsar, Islamabad. The complainant, Shaukat Ali Mukadam, stated that his daughter Noor Mukadam had gone missing on 19 July 2021. On the next day, at around 10:00 p.m., he was informed by Police Station Kohsar that his daughter had been found dead at the house of Zahir Zakir Jaffar in F-7/4, Islamabad.

At first, Zahir Zakir Jaffar was named as the only accused. Later, supplementary statements were recorded and other persons were also brought into the case. The prosecution version was that Noor had been present inside the petitioner’s house and was murdered there. Since there was no person who directly saw the murder being committed, the case was built on surrounding circumstances. These included the recovery of Noor’s body from the petitioner’s residence, CCTV footage from the house, forensic reports, DNA evidence, recovery of the alleged weapon, and recovery of Noor’s mobile phone.

The Trial Court convicted Zahir Zakir Jaffar under several provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code. He was sentenced to death under Section 302(b) PPC for murder. He was also sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 364 PPC, one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 342 PPC, and twenty-five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(1) PPC. Compensation and fines were also imposed. The benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was granted.

Zahir challenged the conviction before the Islamabad High Court. The High Court dismissed his appeal and maintained most of the findings against him. However, it enhanced the sentence under Section 376 PPC from imprisonment to death. The matter then came before the Supreme Court through petitions for leave to appeal.

In his statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C., the petitioner denied the prosecution case. He said that he and Noor were close friends and had been in a consensual relationship. He claimed that Noor came to his house for a drug party, that other people were also present, and that he lost consciousness because of drugs. According to him, when he regained consciousness, he was tied up and later came to know that Noor had been murdered by someone else. He also alleged that media pressure and state influence had affected the investigation.

Legal Issues

The Supreme Court had to consider several connected questions.

First, whether a conviction in a capital case can be based on circumstantial evidence when there is no direct eyewitness to the murder.

Secondly, whether CCTV footage and DVR recordings were admissible in evidence and what standard should be used before relying on them.

Thirdly, whether the prosecution had proved a complete chain of circumstances connecting the petitioner with the murder and sexual assault of Noor Mukadam.

Fourthly, whether the petitioner’s defence of drug use, false implication and insanity created any reasonable doubt.

Lastly, whether the death sentence under Section 302(b) PPC was justified, and whether the sentence under Section 376 PPC should remain death or be reduced.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner’s main argument was that the prosecution case was entirely circumstantial. His counsel argued that in a case involving capital punishment, every link in the chain of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Since there was no direct eyewitness to the actual murder, it was submitted that the Court should be slow in maintaining the death sentence. The defence also argued that the prosecution had failed to exclude the possibility that someone else may have committed the offence.

The petitioner also questioned the reliance placed on CCTV footage. The defence position was that digital evidence must be treated with caution because recordings can be edited, altered or taken out of context. The petitioner further relied on his Section 342 Cr.P.C. statement and maintained that a drug party had taken place at his house. He claimed that he was unconscious during the relevant time and that someone else may have killed Noor. He also raised the plea of insanity under Section 465 Cr.P.C. Other points raised included delay in registration of FIR, delay in postmortem, absence of fingerprints on the knife, and absence of motive.

The prosecution and the complainant, on the other hand, argued that the case was proved through a strong and connected chain of evidence. They submitted that direct eyewitness evidence was not necessary because the CCTV footage, forensic material and recoveries clearly pointed towards the petitioner. The prosecution placed special reliance on the fact that Noor’s body was recovered from the petitioner’s house. It also relied on the footage showing Noor trying to escape, the petitioner following her, snatching her phone, locking her, assaulting her and dragging her back inside.

The prosecution argued that the CCTV footage had been properly authenticated. A forensic report confirmed that the recording was not edited, and facial comparison matched the petitioner. The prosecution also relied on DNA evidence, medical evidence, recovery of the weapon and recovery of Noor’s mobile phone. It was further argued that the petitioner had failed to give any reasonable explanation for Noor’s presence in his house or for the recovery of her dead body from his premises.

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court first discussed the law on circumstantial evidence. The Court accepted that there was no eyewitness to the actual killing. However, it made clear that the absence of direct evidence does not automatically destroy the prosecution case. A conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence if all circumstances are proved and, when read together, lead only to the guilt of the accused. The Court applied the familiar principle that one end of the chain must touch the dead body and the other must connect with the accused. If the chain is broken, conviction cannot stand. But if the chain is complete, circumstantial evidence can be as strong as direct evidence.

The Court then turned to the CCTV footage and digital material. It relied on State v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh, where the Supreme Court had laid down a two-step test for digital evidence. The first requirement is that the source of the video and the manner in which it was obtained must be explained. The second requirement is that a forensic report should show that the recording was not altered. In this case, the CCTV footage, DVR and hard disk were produced before the Court. The forensic report confirmed that the footage was not edited, and the facial comparison supported the prosecution version.

The Court also examined the legal position of electronic evidence in Pakistan. It noted that digital evidence was once treated with caution, but the law had developed after the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 and amendments in the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Articles 46-A, 73 and 164 QSO were relevant because they allowed courts to receive and consider evidence produced through modern devices and automated systems. The Court’s reasoning showed that electronic evidence should not be rejected merely because it is electronic.

A central feature of the judgment was the use of the “Silent Witness” theory. Under this theory, a video recording can speak for itself if it is shown to be genuine and reliable. The Court treated CCTV footage as a mechanical and neutral record of events. Unlike human witnesses, a camera is not affected by fear, pressure, forgetfulness or personal bias. This does not mean that every video must be accepted blindly. It means that once the source, integrity and reliability of the recording are proved, the footage can become strong substantive evidence.

The facts shown in the CCTV footage were highly damaging to the petitioner’s defence. The footage showed Noor attempting to escape from the house. It showed the chowkidar failing to assist her. It then showed the petitioner following her, taking her mobile phone, locking her, assaulting her and dragging her back inside. This was treated as a crucial circumstance because it showed the events immediately before she disappeared from the footage and was later found dead.

The Court did not rely on the footage alone. It considered the whole chain of evidence. Noor’s body was recovered from the petitioner’s house. Her mobile phone was recovered from him. The medical and DNA evidence supported the charge of sexual assault. The crime weapon was recovered and was stained with the blood of the deceased. These facts, when placed together, left no reasonable explanation consistent with innocence.

The petitioner’s defence was also examined. His claim about a drug party was rejected because the medical evidence did not show intoxicants in the bodies of either the petitioner or the deceased. The CCTV footage also did not show guests coming for such a party. His plea of insanity was rejected because it was not raised at the proper stage and no defence evidence proved any mental disorder. The Court also held that absence of motive was not fatal where the remaining evidence clearly established the offence.

Justice Ali Baqar Najafi’s additional note dealt with some other objections. It explained that the short delay in lodging the FIR was understandable because the complainant was the father of the deceased and had suffered a severe shock. The postmortem delay was also not treated as fatal because the doctors had followed the required procedure. The additional note also rejected the argument that minor discrepancies or absence of fingerprints on the knife weakened the prosecution case.

Judgment and Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court converted Zahir Zakir Jaffar’s petition into an appeal and partly allowed it. His conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) PPC were maintained. His conviction under Section 376(1) PPC was also maintained, but the sentence of death under that section was converted into imprisonment for life. His conviction and sentence under Section 342 PPC were maintained. However, his conviction and sentence under Section 364 PPC were set aside.

The convictions of Muhammad Iftikhar and Muhammad Jan were maintained, but their sentences were reduced to the period already undergone. The petitions filed by the complainant for enhancement of sentence and against acquittal were dismissed.

The ratio decidendi is that a conviction, even in a capital case, can be based on circumstantial evidence if the prosecution proves a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that excludes every reasonable possibility of innocence. The case also establishes that CCTV footage and other digital evidence can be treated as substantive and primary evidence where the source is proved and forensic examination confirms that the recording has not been altered.

Critical Analysis

This judgment is important because it brings Pakistani criminal evidence law closer to present-day realities. Many serious crimes take place inside homes, private buildings or enclosed spaces where direct witnesses are not available. In such cases, a rigid insistence on eyewitness testimony may allow guilty persons to escape. The Supreme Court’s approach is therefore practical. It recognises that modern cases often depend on scientific, forensic and digital proof.

The strongest part of the judgment is its careful treatment of CCTV evidence. The Court did not say that every recording should automatically be accepted. Instead, it required proof of source and forensic verification. This gives digital evidence value while also protecting the accused from manipulated or unreliable material. The judgment therefore balances the rights of the accused with the need to discover the truth.

The use of the Silent Witness theory is also a strong contribution. It allows courts to rely on recordings that are properly authenticated, even where no person directly saw the event. In the present case, the footage was not a minor supporting fact. It formed a major link in the chain because it showed Noor’s attempt to escape and the petitioner’s conduct immediately before the crime.

At the same time, the judgment also shows that Pakistan needs more detailed rules on digital evidence. Issues such as chain of custody, metadata, hash values, safe storage of DVRs and access logs may become very important in future trials. The judgment gives a useful legal direction, but further procedural safeguards would make digital evidence even safer and more reliable.

One part of the additional note requires caution. The observation about “living relationship” was social in nature. The legal strength of the judgment does not come from that comment. It comes from evidence, forensic proof and the application of criminal law. Criminal courts are at their strongest when they decide cases on legal standards rather than moral observations.

Conclusion

Zahir Zakir Jaffar v. The State is a major judgment on circumstantial and digital evidence in Pakistan. The Supreme Court maintained the conviction and death sentence under Section 302(b) PPC because the prosecution proved a complete chain through CCTV footage, forensic reports, DNA evidence, recovery of the body, mobile phone and weapon, and the petitioner’s failure to offer a believable explanation.

The main lesson from the case is that electronic evidence is not weak merely because it is electronic. If its source is proved and forensic examination confirms that it has not been changed, it can become powerful evidence in a criminal trial. The judgment will be remembered for applying the Silent Witness theory and for confirming that properly authenticated CCTV footage may be decisive. It also shows that circumstantial evidence, when complete and reliable, can support even a capital conviction.

Reference(S):

1. Zahir Zakir Jaffar v. The State through Advocate General, Islamabad, Crim. Pet. Nos. 467, 441, 442, 468, 469 & 485 of 2023 (Sup. Ct. Pak. May 20, 2025).
2. State v. Ahmed Omar Sheikh, 2021 SCMR 873 (Pak.).
3. Muhammad Abid v. The State, PLD 2018 SC 813 (Pak.).
4. Muhammad Rafique alias Feeqa v. The State, 2019 SCMR 1068 (Pak.).
5. Mst. Safia Bano v. Home Department, Government of Punjab, PLD 2021 SC 488 (Pak.).
6. Talib Hussain v. The State, 1995 SCMR 1776 (Pak.).
7. Pakistan Penal Code, No. XLV of 1860, §§ 302(b), 342, 364, 376(1) (Pak.).
8. Code of Criminal Procedure, No. V of 1898, §§ 342, 382-B, 465 (Pak.).
9. Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, arts. 46-A, 73, 164 (Pak.).
10. Electronic Transactions Ordinance, No. LI of 2002 (Pak.).