“Zahir Jaffar’s mental condition was never checked,” says convict’s lawyer.

Islamabad: The Islamabad High Court heard two appeals in the Noor Muqaddam murder case on Wednesday.

Earlier this year, the main offender in the case, convict Jaffar, was sentenced to death and fined Rs500,000 as compensation to the deceased’s heirs, as required by Section 544-A of the Pakistan Penal Code.

One hearing was held to challenge the death sentence given to convict Zahir Jaffar. In contrast, the other was held to challenge the acquittal of convicts and accused, as well as an increase in their sentences, submitted by Noor’s father, former diplomat Shaukat Muqaddam.

IHC Chief Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan heard the appeals.

Muqaddam entered the court with his lawyer, Shah Khawar, while the primary accused, Jaffar, was represented by Usman Khosa.

Those highlighted technical arguments in his appeal against the sentence, claiming that only three of the nine accused were convicted.

“Zahir Jaffar’s mental status was never tested, despite the fact that it is his basic right,” the convict’s counsel explained to the court after Jaffar’s plea for a mental checkup was denied.

“Did accused Zahir Jaffar receive a fair trial?” He inquired.

He further stated that the trial court gave Jaffar a copy of the challan, but he did not sign it. Khosa also indicated that the medical report was obtained from the jail, but the court did not specify what it was.

“The Supreme Court rules that a medical examination is required, even if it is identified at any time.” “It has been admitted that neither a board nor anything on record was constituted for a medical checkup,” Khosa added.

Following this, Muqaddam’s counsel Khawar began his arguments, stating that the accused had filed a request for a mental examination, which was denied.

“The trial court delivered a thorough order that included the reasons,” he told the court.

In response, Jaffar’s attorney said that during cross-examination, it was revealed that the plaintiff, his relatives, and police officers were present at the scene of the occurrence before the initial information report was filed (FIR).

Khosa said that they discussed the FIR before filing it. Following contradictions and doubts in the evidence, Jaffar’s counsel argued that the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt in this instance.

In response, IHC CJ Farooq stated that every criminal law judgment has a background. He then postponed the case’s hearing until tomorrow.