ISLAMABAD: A district and session court in Islamabad on Thursday fixed October 14 for the indictment of the accused in the Noor Mukadam murder case, while rejecting the accused’s request to be provided digital evidence.
The hearing was presided over by Additional Sessions judge Ata Rabbani. The main accused, Zahir Jaffer, and six others were produced before the court.
A total of 12 people will be indicted in the case, including Zahir Jaffer, his parents Zakir Jaffer and Asmat Adamjee, their three household staff Iftikhar, Jan Muhammad and Jameel, and six Therapy Works employees including Tahir Zahoor, Amjad, Dilip Kumar, Abdul Haq, Wamiq and Samar Abbas.
During the court proceedings, Judge Atta Rabbani rejected the suspects’ plea seeking a copy of digital proves relating to the gruesome murder of Noor Mukadam and announced the new date for the indictments in the suspects’ presence.
Meanwhile, Zahir told the court he wanted to approach the rostrum and speak, saying “I apologise”. The judge told the accused that he will be heard during the trial and ordered the police to take him back to lockup.
The court directed the concerned officials to ensure the suspects’ appearance before the judiciary on the said date and adjourned the hearing till October 14.
The Islamabad court had last month set October 6 for framing charges in the case, but deferred it after the suspects filed fresh petitions, seeking certain documents along with the copy of the challan.
During the hearing, the superior judge questioned Zakir about hiring counsel. “Now that the evidence is presented, you need a lawyer. Is Rizwan Abbasi your lawyer?” the judge asked. “I do not know maybe my brother has hired one,” Zahir stated.
Separately, the parents approached the Supreme Court (SC) for post-arrest bail after the IHC rejected their bail plea last week. Zakir and Asmat had filed two separate pleas in the top court through their counsel Khawaja Haris.
As per the IHC ruling, Zahir Jaffar maintained in his statement that he had informed his father before the murder, whether his statement is acceptable or not is for the trial court to decide. The court maintained that evidence of direct assistance in aiding and abetting a crime cannot, as a rule, apply everywhere.
