Islamabad court issues detailed verdict in Sana Yousuf murder case

Details of the judgement convicting Umar Hayat for the murder of 17-year-old Sana Yousaf emerged on Wednesday, revealing that he had confessed before a Magistrate to killing the teenage TikToker after she refused to meet him, and that police had tracked him down through a contact saved as "Kaka" on the victim's mobile phone. An Additional Sessions Court in Islamabad on Tuesday sentenced Hayat to death for Sana’s murder. The social media influencer was shot dead inside her home in Sector G-13/1 in June 2025, after she refused to meet the convict. Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka announced the verdict, convicting Hayat, son of Amjad Javed, a resident of Jaranwala, Faisalabad, on charges of murder, robbery, trespass, and possession of stolen property. The court found the prosecution had produced "overwhelming evidence" against the convict and ruled that he did not deserve any leniency. {{pdf}} According to the judgement, on the afternoon of June 2, Sana was at home along with her mother Farzana Yousaf and her aunt Latifa Shah. Her father, Yousaf Hassan, had stepped out of the house for some work while her younger brother had travelled to Chitral. At approximately 5:00pm, Hayat entered the house armed with a 30-bore pistol. He proceeded directly to Sana's room and fired two shots at her chest. After the shooting, he picked up the victim’s mobile phone and fled the scene. The commotion brought neighbours to the street, with Sana was rushed to KRL Hospital in a neighbour's vehicle, where she was declared dead. She was subsequently shifted to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences. The postmortem recorded two entry wounds and two exit wounds on Sana’s chest and back. The cause of death was determined to be cardiopulmonary arrest resulting from firearm injury to the chest, causing damage to vital organs — specifically the heart and lungs. Meanwhile, the time between injury and death, according to the postmortem, was approximately two to three minutes. The postmortem report concluded that all injuries were ante-mortem in nature and "were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature." Read: Sana Yousaf murder case: Parents praise court verdict, call for public hanging of convict The FIR, registered at Sumbul Police Station, did not initially name any suspect. Investigating Officer (IO) Fakhar Abbas then began piecing together the accused's identity through the victim's own mobile phone, which was recovered from her room during spot inspection. Examining the phone, the IO found a contact saved as "Kaka". The holder of the number was revealed to have come to Islamabad, attempting to meet Sana, who had not been responding to him. Location data placed the number in Sector G-14 at 9:30pm on the day of the murder, and the number was registered in Hayat’s name. The IO, along with a police team, travelled to Jaranwala. Upon arriving at Amin Park, a boy met them in the street who, upon being asked his name, identified himself as Hayat. The victim's missing mobile phone was recovered from him on the spot and he was formally arrested on June 3. Later, the court heard testimony from two independent witnesses who proved instrumental in establishing Hayat's movements on the day of the murder. Ahmad Khan, who operates a rent-a-car business at G-11 Markaz, Islamabad, testified that at around 2:30pm on June 2, a young man came to his office, introduced himself as Umar Hayat, and demanded a vehicle on rent. A black Toyota Fortuner, along with driver Muhammad Wakeel was handed over to the convict. Wakeel testified that he drove Hayat towards G-13/1, where he asked Wakeel to stop the vehicle and proceeded on foot. The convict then returned to the vehicle at approximately 5:15pm, worried. He directed the driver towards Service Road G-13/1, near the railway bridge, where he stopped the vehicle on the pretext of answering a call and went towards the bushes. After returning, he instructed the driver to drop him at Chungi, from where he left. It was from under that same railway bridge that the murder weapon — a 30-bore pistol — was later recovered on Hayat's pointation. Read More: Our grief is not justice: The rot that killed Sana Yousaf was never hiding On June 23, the convict expressed a wish to make a statement before a Magistrate. He was produced before the assistant commissioner, recording his confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). In his confession, he stated that he was also a TikToker and followed Sana on social media. He said he had come from Jaranwala to Islamabad to meet her, but that she refused to see him, which caused him great distress. Upon this rejection, he went to Sana's house and in the presence of two women, fired two shots, picked up Sana's mobile phone, and fled. Hayat concluded his statement saying "I made a very grave mistake by killing Sana Yousaf. I am remorseful for my crime, that I killed a flower-like young girl in the most brutal manner. My conscience reproaches me at every moment." The convict later retracted this confession, claiming he had been falsely implicated. The court, however, noted that Hayat had produced no evidence to demonstrate that the confession was made under coercion, and that under Article 91 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, a confession recorded in accordance with law before a Magistrate is presumed to be true. Further, the court found the prosecution had built its case on mutually corroborating strands of evidence. According to the judgement, the prosecution "produced overwhelming evidence against the accused." Eyewitness accounts were corroborated while fingerprints lifted from a mirror inside the victim's room by the forensic team, were matched, via NADRA records, to Hayat's National Identity Card. Further, the firearms report confirmed that empty cartridges recovered from the scene had been fired from the same 30-bore pistol recovered on Hayat's pointation. The victim's mobile phone, recovered from the accused at the time of his arrest, was also identified by her father. Judge Majoka sentenced Hayat under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), ordering death by hanging for Qatl-e-Amd (intentional murder), and ordering compensation of Rs2,000,000 payable to Sana's heirs under Section 544-A of the CrPC. Under Section 392 of the PPC, pertaining to the robbery-related charge, Hayat was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs200,000. In case of non-payment of the fine, two additional months of imprisonment will be applicable. Under Section 411 of the PPC, which pertains to stolen property, the convict was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs100,000, with a month of simple imprisonment in case of non-payment. Also Read: 'We will not forget you' Finally, in regards to the charge of trespassing, the court sentenced Hayat under Section 449 of the PPC to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs200,000, and a further two months of imprisonment in case of non-payment. According to the judgement, all sentences are to run concurrently while the death sentence is subject to confirmation by the Islamabad High Court, to which the murder reference has been sent under Section 374 of the CrPC. The convict has also been informed of his right to appeal within 30 days. The court observed in the judgement, "The accused due to non-meeting the deceased to him has committed murder of an innocent girl aged about seventeen years. There is no mitigating circumstance, therefore, the accused does not deserve any leniency."

from Pakistan News, Latest News Pakistan, Pakistan Headline | The Express Tribune https://ift.tt/fk5DZGi