Gulraiz Shahzad vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 508 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Gulraiz Shahzad VS State S. 302(b)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 342---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Defence taken by the accused not proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the husband of complainant by inflicting a churri blow---Appellant took two pleas during the trial, and in his statement recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C., one of his alibi was that he was present at the Head Office of clinic laboratories and second that he was falsely involved in the case by the complainant to grab property (house) of her in-laws---Appellant failed to establish that the complainant, or the deceased had previous enmity over the property (house) owned by the in-laws of the appellant---Neither the appellant brought on the record any proof that his parents were the property owners, which the complainant wanted to grab---There was no evidence on record that the appellant was present at the Head Office of clinic laboratories---In the cross-examination of the complainant, nothing material had come on record that favored the appellant---Appellant had failed to examine himself as a defence witness and the bald averments made by the accused in his defence without any evidence on record to support them could not help the accused to disprove the prosecution evidence---Defence taken by the appellant under S.342, Cr.P.C. was not evidence at all, and it could not be read as part of the evidence---Statement of the accused recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C had to be looked into only as an explanation of incriminating circumstances and not as a piece of evidence---Accused had the option to examine himself as a witness, but when he took a specific defense, he had to prove it---Appellant had not opted to appear in the witness box for cross-examination, nor led any of his evidence, which drew an adverse inference against him and led to the conclusion that the version of the eye-witness/complainant regarding the manner of the accident was correct---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to mitigating circumstance, the death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence.

Gulraiz Shahzad vs State S — 2025 PCrLJ 508 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ