ISLAMABAD: The lawyer for Zahir Jaffer, the primary suspect in the murder of Noor Muqqadam, has suggested that she (Noor) may have been slain for honour because she had a “living relation” with his client.
Sikandar Zulqarnain Saleem, the lawyer for the primary accused, raised various doubts about the police investigation during his closing statements, claiming that the police did not question the victim’s only brother during the entire inquiry.
“This is a living relationship (between Noor Muqqadam and Zahir Jaffer), frayed emotions might overpower anyone, and it could be a matter of honour,” the accused’s lawyer added, implying that the victim’s brother had not been questioned by the police throughout the inquiry.
“Why did the police not question the victim’s only brother?” lawyer Sikandar Zulqarnain wondered, adding that it’s possible he didn’t want to back the investigating officer’s narrative (IO).
The main accused, Zahir Jaffer, and other accused appeared in court as Additional Sessions Judge Atta Rabbani brought up the case for hearing.
“The plaintiff (Shaukat Muqqadam) indicated in his statement that when he arrived home on July 19, he discovered Noor missing,” the lawyer said, “while the prosecution told the court that Noor Muqqaddam leaped off the floor in an attempt to escape on July 18.” “How is it possible that when a child does not return home for the entire day, the parents do not become concerned and call the police?” he wondered.
According to the IO’s statement, some people were there on the upper floor of the house when he arrived at the crime scene, but Zulqarnain did not say who those “some people” were throughout the investigation.
“The statement claimed that the victim’s body was lying and that four or five persons were holding Zahir before he was caught,” the defence lawyer argued. “Why were these guys not hauled into custody for interrogation?” he wondered, implying that it was done to appease someone’s ego.
The accused’s counsel claimed that Noor Muqqadam jumped out and Zahir locked her in the room from the outside during his arguments. Did anyone notice Zahir’s weapon in his hand? He speculated that Zahir Jaffer may have locked her up to protect her from someone.
“The plaintiff (Shaukat Muqqadam) is an educated man,” the lawyer claimed. He would have reported what he witnessed if the body of a girl was lying in front of him, but the FIR just mentions that the head was severed from the body, with no mention of blood.”
“How can someone slit someone’s throat when there is no blood on his hand, and no such thing has been reported in the report,” the defence lawyer contended.
The lawyer for the main accused said that the IO fabricated a story against Zahir Jaffer.
Because they (police) had been constructing a plot all night, the victim’s post-mortem was performed at 9 a.m. the next day. “If they had the time, they would have definitely brought a piece of evidence to demonstrate how the murder occurred,” he added, adding that the parents should have informed the police when the girl did not return home for one day.
“They (parents) should also be charged with negligence,” the lawyer stated. He accused the forensic team of doing a sloppy investigation, claiming that the forensic team recovered everything from the scene except the DVR. They gathered items of their own choosing. He claimed the DVR wasn’t a needle and didn’t wear a “Sulemani topi.”
He went on to say that the cops brought the body to the Polyclinic’s emergency room instead of taking it to the morgue as required by law.
“What did the cops do the night of July 20th and 21st?” On July 21, at 9:30 a.m., an autopsy was performed. The reason for the delay was that it was being decided who should be charged in the case, according to the lawyer.
“The post-mortem was then performed multiple times by different people. Had the body been given to an untrained person, requiring three to four experts to complete the post-mortem once more?”
“When the plaintiff arrived at the police station, he did not immediately lodge a FIR,” the accused’s lawyer claimed, citing plaintiff Shaukat Muqqadam’s negligence. He claims that the negligence clause also applies to him.
The court ordered the Therapy Works lawyer to present arguments on Monday after the main accused’s counsel finished his last remarks.
