1

Legal Trials Summary

Javed Iqbal Case: Serial Killer

Javed Iqbal was a Pakistani serial killer who gained notoriety for committing a series

of murders in the late 1990s. Born in 1956, he confessed to the rape and murder of 100 boys

between the ages of 6 and 16. His crimes were heinous and shocked the nation.

In December 1999, Javed Iqbal sent a letter to the police and various newspapers in

which he detailed the gruesome nature of his crimes and claimed to have killed 100 boys. He

also included a request for the government to publicly execute him and to use his assets to

build a hospital. The authorities took the letter seriously and initiated an investigation.

Javed Iqbal was arrested in December 2000, along with his accomplice, Sajid. The

police conducted a search of his house, where they found evidence supporting his

confessions, including photographs, videotapes, and personal items belonging to the victims.

During the trial, Javed Iqbal initially pleaded not guilty, but later changed his plea to

guilty. In a shocking turn of events, he announced that he wanted to be sentenced to death

and asked the court not to grant him any mercy. His accomplice, Sajid, also pleaded guilty to

his involvement in the crimes.

The court sentenced Javed Iqbal to death for the murders and an additional 14 years

for the sexual assault charges. Sajid was also sentenced to death. The judge expressed his

disgust at the brutality of the crimes and stated that the accused deserved no leniency. The

judge passed the sentence saying, "You will be strangled to death in front of the parents

whose children you killed, your body will then be cut into 100 pieces and put in acid, the

same way you killed the children."

On October 9 2001, Iqbal and an accomplice, Sajid Ahmed, were found dead in their

respective cells at the Kot Lakhpat Jail. Despite indications that both had been murdered, the

pair were officially ruled to have hanged themselves with bedsheets. Autopsies revealed that
 2

they had been beaten prior to death. Iqbal's body went unclaimed. The official cause of death

was reported as suicide by hanging. Some speculated that it might have been a case of

extrajudicial killing, but the official stance was that he had taken his own life.

Noor Mukadam Case: Murder

Noor Mukadam, a 27-year-old Pakistani woman and the daughter of former diplomat

Shaukat Mukadam, tragically met her demise on July 20, 2021, at a residence in Islamabad's

upscale Sector F-7/4. The gruesome incident involved Noor being held captive, subjected to

torment with a knuckleduster, and ultimately decapitated with a knife after enduring sexual

assault.

The identified perpetrator, 27-year-old Zahir Jaffer, was apprehended at the crime

scene and subsequently taken into custody. Complicities arose as Jaffer's parents and

household staff faced arrest for their roles in concealing evidence and facilitating Noor's

multiple but thwarted escape attempts. The motive behind this heinous act was later revealed

as premeditated, with Jaffer confessing to authorities that he planned to kill Noor if she

declined his marriage proposal.

The legal aftermath saw Zahir Jaffer receiving a death sentence for Noor Mukadam's

murder in February 2022, while his guards, Iftikhar and Mohammad Jan, were sentenced to

ten years of imprisonment. Despite Noor's courageous attempts to escape, the tragedy

unfolded as the security guard handed her back to Jaffer, and law enforcement believes the

murder might have been prevented had the guard informed them promptly.

Following the murder, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Section

302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, implicating Jaffer in the crime. The involvement of Therapy

Works, a counseling and psychotherapy center where Jaffer was employed, came under

investigation. Data retrieved from Jaffer's phone indicated a history of violence against

women.
 3

On August 15, 2021, forensic evidence, including fingerprints and DNA, confirmed

Jaffer's involvement in the murder. The court's decision, announced on February 24, 2022, by

Additional Session Judge Atta Rabbani, delivered a death sentence to Zahir Jaffer for murder

and 25 years of imprisonment for rape. Watchman Muhammad Iftikhar and gardener

Muhammad Jan received ten years each for abetting. The defense's argument about Zahir's

mental disorder was dismissed, leading to acquittals for Jaffer's parents, the cook Jamil, and

Therapy Works employees due to insufficient evidence.

Post-trial, appeals were made, with Noor's father seeking increased sentences for

Zahir Jaffer, Muhammad Iftikhar, and Muhammad Jan. Zahir, Iftikhar, and Jan appealed

separately for reduced sentences. On March 13, 2023, the High Court upheld the original

sentences, adding an increased life sentence for Zahir's rape conviction. Zahir Jaffer then

appealed to the Supreme Court, citing flaws in the FIR, and contesting the previous

judgments.

Presently, Zahir Jaffer remains imprisoned, with the death penalty yet to be executed.

The legal proceedings continue, underscoring the gravity and complexity of this tragic case.

Motorway Gang-rape Case

On 9 September 2020, Abid Malhi and Shafqat alias Bagga perpetrated a horrifying

crime, subjecting a woman to rape at gunpoint on the motorway in Gujjarpura, Pakistan. The

incident occurred as the victim's car ran out of fuel, leaving her stranded and vulnerable. The

Anti-Terrorism Court, following an FIR and legal proceedings, delivered a verdict at the

Camp Jail.

The court sentenced both prime accused, Abid Malhi and Shafqat Bagga, to death

after the prosecution successfully established the case against them. Life imprisonment was

additionally imposed for charges of abduction, and 14 years of imprisonment were handed

down for robbery. The woman, traveling with her children, had called a relative for assistance
 4

when two armed men attacked her, leaving her traumatized with bloodstains on her clothes

and her vehicle's windows shattered.

The accused took her and the children to a nearby forested area, where the horrifying

gang-rape occurred. Subsequently, they robbed her of valuables, including cash, jewelry, and

cards, before leaving her stranded. Police later arrested the suspects, and the court recorded

statements from around 35 prosecution witnesses.

Despite attempts by the defense to portray the accused as innocent victims of a 'forged

case,' the victim positively identified Abid Malhi as one of the perpetrators. The court, in its

written verdict, emphasized that the prosecution had successfully proven the case against

both accused.

The judge concluded that both Abid Ali and Shafqat Ali Bagga had a common

intention during the commission of the crime. As a result, both were convicted and sentenced

to death under Section 376(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code. However, the execution of the

sentences is contingent on confirmation by the Lahore High Court.

In addition to the death sentences, the court imposed life imprisonment for kidnapping

and abduction charges, with fines of Rs200,000 each. Furthermore, 14 years of imprisonment

were awarded under Section 392 of the PPC for robbery, along with fines of Rs200,000. The

court also handed down five years of imprisonment for mischief and imposed fines of

Rs50,000 each.

While the convicts can challenge their conviction within seven days in the Lahore

High Court, as of now, they remain incarcerated, awaiting further legal proceedings. The

decision of the LHC on their appeal against the death sentences is still pending.

Daniel McNaughton (1813-1865)

Daniel McNaughton, the son of a Glasgow wood turner, suffered from delusions of a

conspiracy against him orchestrated by Tories, Catholic priests, Jesuits, and spies. The
 5

Commissioner of Police was aware of McNaughton's condition for 18 months before an

incident where he shot Edward Drummond, mistaking him for Tory Prime Minister Sir

Robert Peel. McNaughton was arrested and indicted for willful murder.

During the trial, defense counsel Alexander Cockburn presented extensive evidence,

including the testimony of various doctors, supporting the claim that McNaughton was

insane. The term "homicidal monomania" and "partial delusion" were discussed, challenging

traditional views of insanity defense. Dr. Forbes Benignus Winslow, an expert in insanity

defense, was questioned for not examining McNaughton.

The trial resulted in McNaughton's acquittal of murder on the grounds of insanity. He

was forcibly institutionalized under the Criminal Lunatics Act 1800, spending 20 years at

Bethlem Royal Hospital and later transferring to Bradmoor Asylum, where he died in 1865.

McNaughton's rules emerged from the House of Lords discussion in 1843, emphasizing that

an insane person is punishable if they know the nature of the crime, and the jury decides the

defendant's sanity. The following are the main points of McNaughton's rules:

1) Every man is to be presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be

responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved.

2) An insane person is punishable “if he knows” at the time of crime.

3) To establish a defense on insanity, the accused, by defect of reason or disease of mind, is

not in a position to know the nature and consequences.

4) The insane person must be considered in the same situation as to responsibility as if the

facts with respect to which the delusion exists were real.

5) It was the jury's role to decide whether the defendant was insane.

These rules influenced the legal definition of insanity and are reflected in Section 84

of the Indian Penal Code. Section 84 IPC embodies McNaughton rules as follows: “Nothing

is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of
 6

unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is

either wrong or contrary to the law.”

O.J. Simpson trial

The 1995 criminal trial of O.J. Simpson stands as one of the most iconic legal sagas in

American history, marked by a combination of celebrity, racial tension, and media scrutiny.

The trial centered on the brutal murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman on

June 12, 1994. The victims were discovered outside Nicole's condominium in the upscale

Brentwood area of Los Angeles, igniting a high-profile investigation.

The case became a national spectacle when O.J. Simpson, a former football star and

media personality, became the prime suspect. The shocking slow-speed Bronco chase,

viewed by 95 million people on live television, heightened public fascination. The trial

commenced on January 24, 1995, with Judge Lance Ito presiding.

The prosecution, led by Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden, aimed to establish

Simpson's guilt through a combination of motive, opportunity, and forensic evidence.

Witnesses, including Nicole's sister Denise Brown and friend Ron Shipp, painted a picture of

Simpson as an abusive husband with a history of violence. The timeline of events, supported

by limousine driver Allan Park and house guest Kato Kaelin, suggested that Simpson had the

opportunity to commit the murders.

The prosecution's reliance on forensic evidence was both pivotal and controversial.

DNA testing, a relatively novel technique at the time, played a crucial role. The LAPD officer

Mark Fuhrman, who discovered a bloodied glove at Simpson's estate, faced intense cross-

examination. The prosecution's decision to have Simpson try on the infamous gloves in court

backfired when they appeared too small, leading to Johnnie Cochran's memorable phrase, "If

it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

 7

Simpson's defense, famously known as the "Dream Team," employed a multi-faceted

strategy. They challenged the prosecution's case by questioning Simpson's physical capability

to commit the murders, raising doubts about the timeline, and suggesting the possibility of

evidence contamination or planting by corrupt police officers. Fuhrman became a focal point

for the defense, portrayed as a racist officer capable of framing Simpson.

The trial concluded on October 3, 1995, with a swift three-hour jury deliberation

resulting in Simpson's acquittal. The defense's use of forensic expert Henry Lee, who raised

doubts about the prosecution's key physical evidence, played a pivotal role in shaping the

jury's verdict. Despite his acquittal in the criminal trial, Simpson faced further legal

consequences in a subsequent civil trial.

In the civil trial, held in Santa Monica, Simpson was found liable for the wrongful

deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. The jury awarded significant

compensatory and punitive damages, totaling $33.5 million. However, Simpson's assets,

including his home and pension, were largely shielded under California law.

O.J. Simpson's legal troubles did not end there. In 2007, he faced a separate criminal

trial in Las Vegas, where he was convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping. Simpson

served time in prison but was granted parole in 2017. The Simpson trial left an indelible mark

on American legal history, highlighting issues of race, domestic violence, and the media's

role in shaping public perception of high-profile cases.