ISLAMABAD: An Islamabad sessions court sentenced Umar Hayat, the main accused in the Sana Yousaf murder case, to death on Tuesday after finding him guilty of killing the teenage TikTok influencer at her residence in June last year.
Hayat was arrested a day after 17-year-old Yousaf was shot dead in her Islamabad house on June 2, 2025. On Monday, 23-year-old Hayat — son of a retired government official and a TikToker himself — retracted his earlier confessional statement admitting to Yousaf’s murder.
Additional District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Afzal Majoka announced the verdict on Tuesday, handing Hayat the death sentence under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) for committing qatl-i-amd (intentional murder) of Yousaf.
The death sentence would be subject to confirmation by the Islamabad High Court (IHC) under Section 374 (sentence of death to be submitted by court of session) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The court also directed the convict to pay Rs2.5 million as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 544-A of the CrPC.
According to the written judgment, in case of default in payment of compensation, the convict would further undergo six months’ simple imprisonment.
The court also awarded separate punishments under other provisions of law.
Under Section 392 (punishment for robbery) of the PPC, Hayat was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs200,000, while under Section 499 (defamation) of the PPC, he was handed another 10-year sentence with a fine of Rs200,000.
Under Section 411 (dishonestly receiving stolen property) of the PPC, the court awarded him one year of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs100,000.
Judge Majoka ordered that all sentences would run concurrently and also extended to the convict the benefit of Section 382-B of the CrPC, allowing the period already spent in custody to be counted towards the sentence.
In his statement recorded under Section 342 of the CrPC on Monday while testifying before Judge Majoka, Hayat maintained he was falsely implicated in the case.
He repeatedly avoided answering questions put to him in the absence of his counsel, later recording his detailed statement after his lawyer appeared before the court.
Hayat was arrested from Faisalabad within 20 hours of the incident, according to Islamabad Inspector General (IG) Syed Ali Nasir Rizvi, who termed it a case of “repeated rejections”.
The culprit was indicted by the court of Judge Majoka on September 20, where he had denied the charges against him.
Yousaf, a TikTok star with more than a million followers on social media platforms, was known for sharing videos of her favourite cafés, skincare routines, and traditional outfits.
Her killing drew nationwide condemnation and reignited debate over women’s safety in Pakistan.
Retraction of confessional statement
He had admitted to developing a one-sided obsession with Yousaf after online interactions, and said jealousy and suspicion drove him to commit the crime.
According to the statement, Hayat had travelled from Jaranwala to Islamabad on May 28 to wish Yousaf on her birthday. When she did not meet him, he became convinced she was deliberately avoiding him. He added that on June 2, he returned to the capital after renting a Toyota Fortuner and carrying a 30-bore pistol, intending to confront her.
However, in his recent statement, Hayat denied the sequence of events, claiming that he had never quarrelled with Yousaf, never requested to meet her and had had no contact with her.
He alleged that he was implicated due to public pressure generated on social media, as both he and Yousaf were well-known TikTokers.
Last month, IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar rejected Hayat’s petition seeking the transfer of his trial from Judge Majoka’s court to another court.
In late February, IHC’s Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro dismissed Hayat’s petition challenging the recording of a witness statement in the absence of the accused and his counsel.
Justice Soomro had observed that no legal flaw, irregularity or jurisdictional defect had been found in the impugned order, noting that the accused’s attendance via a video link constituted legally valid presence.
This is a developing story that is being updated as the situation evolves. Initial reports in the media can sometimes be inaccurate. We will strive to ensure timeliness and accuracy by relying on credible sources, such as concerned, qualified authorities and our staff reporters.
