Supreme Court of Pakistan
Zahir Zakir Jaffar v. The State and another
Published on this website
Criminal Review Petition No. 89 of 2025 in Criminal Petition No. 467 of 2023
Citation: Approved for reporting; reported citation not yet assigned
Background
Background
The Supreme Court dismissed Zahir Jaffar's review, maintained the murder death sentence, and explained section 510 Cr.P.C., mental incapacity and fair trial.
The petitioner sought review of the Supreme Court's 20 May 2025 decision concerning his convictions for the rape and murder of Noor Mukadam. His counsel did not press the merits of conviction and confined the review to sentence, relying principally on alleged mental incapacity, representation by State-appointed counsel and an objection to DNA and video forensic reports whose makers were not called as witnesses.
Questions before the Court
Questions before the Court
Whether the sentence-only grounds concerning alleged mental incapacity, State-appointed counsel and forensic reports disclosed a patent reviewable error or sufficient mitigation, and whether the 2022 amendment to section 510 Cr.P.C. applied to the pending appeal.
Supreme Court holding
Supreme Court holding
Review is exceptionally narrow and cannot operate as an appeal in disguise. The record did not establish mental incapacity or unfair representation, the section 510 amendment concerned procedure and applied to the pending appeal, and an objection omitted at trial, appeal and the earlier Supreme Court hearing could not be introduced for the first time in review.
Final outcome
Final outcome
The review petition was dismissed and leave refused. The conviction and death sentence under section 302(b) PPC remained in force, while the separate dispositions made on 20 May 2025 under sections 376(1), 364 and 342 PPC remained unchanged.
Practical effect
What the decision means in practice
The review petition was dismissed and leave refused. The conviction and death sentence under section 302(b) PPC remained in force, while the separate dispositions made on 20 May 2025 under sections 376(1), 364 and 342 PPC remained unchanged.
This summary states the immediate effect recorded in the decision. The original judgment and the facts of the particular case remain controlling.
Key legal principles
Key legal principles
- Article 188 review is exceptionally narrow and is not an appeal in disguise, a rehearing or a procedure for reappraising evidence and concluded facts.
- A reviewable error must be patent, manifest and self-evident, unless intervention is otherwise required in the interest of justice or to prevent abuse of process.
- A historical psychiatric episode does not establish legal incapacity or sentence mitigation without cogent evidence connecting the condition to the occurrence or proceedings.
- Appointment of counsel at State expense does not by itself violate fair trial; the record and any specific prejudice from representation must be examined.
- The 2022 amendment adding forensic scientists to section 510 Cr.P.C. concerns the mode of proving expert reports and is procedural rather than substantive.
- A procedural evidentiary amendment ordinarily applies to a pending appeal because an appeal is a continuation of the trial, absent contrary legislative intent or impairment of a vested right.
- Section 510's proviso preserves the court's power to summon and examine the report's maker where necessary in the interest of justice.
- An evidentiary objection omitted at trial, on appeal and in the earlier Supreme Court proceeding cannot ordinarily be introduced for the first time in review.
- Admissibility through section 510 does not make an expert report conclusive; reliability and evidentiary weight remain matters for judicial evaluation.
Pakistan relevance
Pakistan relevance
The judgment is an important Pakistani authority on the boundary between appeal and review in a criminal case, the proof required for mental-incapacity and fair-trial grounds, and the retrospective application of a procedural amendment governing forensic reports. It also gives trial and appellate counsel a direct reason to raise expert-evidence objections promptly and to use section 510's proviso when cross-examination of a forensic scientist is genuinely required.
Research paths
Continue through a legal issue guide
Primary source
Original judgment and official source
This HTML summary does not replace the court record. Use the linked original judgment PDF or official court source to verify the exact text and directions.
Later treatment
Later treatment
No later judicial treatment has been added yet. The judgment is approved for reporting, but the reviewed court-issued PDF does not contain a subsequently assigned reported citation.
Pinpoint research
Exact paragraph and citation links
Each numbered entry has a permanent link, a ready-to-copy pinpoint citation, and the corresponding page of the certified judgment. The short descriptions are editorial research aids; verify the Court's exact wording in the PDF.
Judgment of Justice Ishtiaq Ibrahim12 paragraphs
Convictions and the 2025 Supreme Court dispositions
Records the trial and High Court outcomes and the Supreme Court's earlier decision maintaining the section 302(b) death sentence, converting the section 376(1) sentence to life, setting aside section 364 and maintaining section 342.
Review of the 20 May 2025 judgment sought
Identifies the petitioner's invocation of review jurisdiction and request to revisit the earlier Supreme Court judgment.
Sentence-only review grounds
Records that counsel did not press conviction on the merits and relied on alleged mental incapacity, State-appointed representation and objections to DNA and video forensic reports in seeking life imprisonment.
Review opposed
Records the opposition of the State law officers and counsel for the complainant to the petitioner's review submissions.
Parties heard and judgment examined
Records that the Court heard counsel and the State law officers and examined the judgment under review.
Review is not an appeal in disguise
Explains Article 188 and Order XXVIII, confines criminal review to patent error and exceptional justice grounds, and excludes reargument, evidentiary reassessment and reopening of concluded facts.
Mental-incapacity ground rejected
Finds the 2015 drug-induced psychotic episode remote, records full recovery, notes the absence of contemporaneous continuing medical proof and relies on coherent participation and section 342 answers.
State-appointed counsel caused no proved unfairness
Finds that counsel actively represented the petitioner and cross-examined the prosecution witnesses, with no identified incompetence, incapacity or specific prejudice establishing a fair-trial violation.
Section 510 amendment and forensic reports
Treats the 2022 addition of forensic scientists as procedural and applicable to the pending appeal, preserves the power to summon an expert, and rejects an objection raised for the first time in review.
No reviewable error or sentence mitigation
Finds no error apparent, holds the aggravating features outweigh the asserted mitigation and refuses to reduce the murder death sentence.
Review dismissed and leave refused
Reaffirms the exceptional limits of review and dismisses the petition for failing to disclose a lawful ground for reopening the case.
Court's observations on femicide
Discusses femicide as a gender-motivated continuum of violence, identifies recognised risk behaviours and connects protection of women with constitutional duty and Islamic values.
Research tools
Use this judgment in your research
Copy a link to a specific part
Judgment text is provided for legal research and general information. Verify the official court record before relying on it in proceedings.
Related article
Related article
The Supreme Court dismissed Zahir Jaffar's review, maintained the murder death sentence, and explained section 510 Cr.P.C., mental incapacity and fair trial.
Read the related article →