The horrific murder of 10-year-old Sara Sharif shocked the world, sparking outrage against her father, Urfan Sharif, who later confessed to the brutal killing of his young daughter.
However, the tragic story did not end with the horrifying abuse that led to Sara’s death. The disturbing details continue, as justice took an unexpected turn behind bars.
Once imprisoned, news of Urfan’s crimes quickly spread among fellow inmates. The convicted child killer soon found himself the target of vigilante justice at the hands of other prisoners.
On August 8, 2023, the world was devastated by the heartbreaking news of Sara Sharif’s death. The young girl had endured a two-year-long “campaign of torture” before her body was discovered at the family home in Woking, Surrey. According to BBC reports, she had been hooded, burned, and beaten.
Upon arriving at the scene, police found Sara’s lifeless body on a bunk bed alongside a handwritten confession from her father, which read: “Whoever sees this note, it’s me, Urfan Sharif, who killed my daughter by beating. I am running away because I am scared.” He further claimed, “I swear to God that my intention was not to kill her. But I lost it.”
Shockingly, the day before Sara’s body was discovered, Urfan, along with two other family members, fled to Pakistan.
Following a weeks-long international manhunt, Urfan Sharif, 42, his brother Faisal Malik, 29, and his wife, Beinash Batool, 30, were arrested and charged in connection with Sara’s tragic death.
‘She Died Because of Me’
During court proceedings, it was revealed that Sara had suffered over 70 injuries, including fractures to her ribs, shoulder blades, and spine, a puncture wound to the head, traumatic brain injury, burns from a domestic iron, and human bite marks.
Initially, all three suspects denied involvement. However, in court, Urfan Sharif changed his stance and admitted, “She died because of me.”
On December 17, 2024, Sharif was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum term of 40 years. Batool received a life sentence with a minimum of 33 years. Malik was sentenced to 16 years for causing or allowing the death of a child. During sentencing, Mr. Justice Cavanagh condemned their actions as “a campaign of torture” marked by “almost inconceivable cruelty.”
Sara’s mother, Olga Domin, described the perpetrators as “sadists” and “executioners” in a statement read in court. Addressing her daughter, she said, “She is now an angel who looks down on us from heaven. She is no longer experiencing violence.”
Prison Justice
Once inside South London’s HMP Belmarsh—dubbed “Britain’s Guantanamo Bay”—Sharif quickly became a marked man. In prison, crimes against children are considered the lowest offense, and Urfan’s reputation made him a target.
According to sources, Sharif attempted to keep a low profile, but his past soon caught up with him. On New Year’s Day, just weeks into his life sentence, he was ambushed by two inmates wielding a makeshift weapon— a jagged tuna can lid.
“Urfan was badly sliced up in his cell,” an insider revealed. “The attack was planned, and he suffered serious wounds to his neck and face. He was lucky to survive, required stitches, and will have permanent scars as a reminder of the attack.”
Prison guards had been trying to protect him, knowing he had a target on his back due to the high-profile nature of his case. “An attack was only a matter of time,” the source added. “Many inmates feel justice was served.”
One of Urfan’s suspected attackers is reportedly Steve Sansom, a convicted murderer serving a life sentence for killing and dismembering 38-year-old Sarah Mayhew in 2024. Sansom was previously convicted in 1999 for the murder of cab driver Terrence Boyle, 59.
What are your thoughts on the attack against Urfan Sharif in prison? Share your opinions and let us know what you think!
Jim Caviezel Takes a Stand: Refuses to Work with Robert De Niro
Unexpectedly, Jim Caviezel, an actor, made news when he openly declared that he would never collaborate with Oscar winner Robert De Niro. Widely known for his performance as Jesus Christ in Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ,” Caviezel has called De Niro a “wretched, ungodly man.” This audacious claim has spurred a spirited discussion over the viability of personal convictions and business partnerships in Hollywood.
Devoted to Christianity and renowned for his unshakable adherence to moral values, Caviezel has been transparent about his religious beliefs. These ingrained convictions have informed his choice to keep his distance from Robert De Niro. Although Caviezel did not elaborate on their falling out, it is obvious that his decision is the result of a disagreement with his values. The actor feels that there is a difference between De Niro’s public persona and his previous actions, and he wants to work on projects that are consistent with his own moral principles.
This incident calls into question how performers manage their own convictions in the politically charged and cooperative world of Hollywood. While diversity of thought and expression has always been respected in the profession, there are increasingly more examples of actors setting boundaries based on personal principles. Caviezel’s reluctance to collaborate with De Niro is indicative of a shifting society in which people are more willing to stand by their values, even if doing so puts them in danger of losing their jobs.
The entertainment business has seen firsthand how an actor’s public remarks may help or hurt their career. Although Caviezel’s refusal to work with De Niro might win him over to supporters who share his values and respect his dedication to his convictions, it also raises questions about possible negative effects on his future partnerships and how business people view him. Some people would proceed cautiously with such public pronouncements, and it’s still unclear how this incident will affect Caviezel’s professional path.
One of the key characteristics of Caviezel’s public presence has been his strong Christian faith. He gained notoriety as an actor willing to take on parts that align with his spiritual beliefs because to his depiction of Jesus Christ in “The Passion of the Christ.” The argument with De Niro highlights the difficulties actors encounter in trying to uphold their morality in a field notorious for its complexity and moral ambiguities.
Beyond the specific performers engaged, consideration of the larger ramifications for Hollywood and the entertainment business at large is prompted by Caviezel’s refusal to collaborate with De Niro. The continuous conflict between individual convictions and the collective process of filmmaking is brought to light by this incident. There may be a change in the dynamics of the industry if more actors choose to use their platforms to voice their ideals and stand up for causes that are important to them.
The topic of how personal beliefs and professional obligations intersect in Hollywood has gained attention as a result of Jim Caviezel’s resolute refusal to work with Robert De Niro on moral reasons. The narrow line that separates personal ethics from the communal spirit that characterizes filmmaking is brought to light by this incident. The conflict between Caviezel and De Niro highlights the difficulties and complications experienced by performers who work hard to be true to their values as the entertainment business strives to negotiate these intricacies.
Leave a Reply