ISLAMABAD: The acquittal of Shanzey Malik, daughter of a Supreme Court judge, in a hit-and-run case has been challenged in the Islamabad High Court (IHC).
The petitioner, Rafaqat Ali, moved the appeal through his counsel Tufail Shehzad advocate and cited Shanzey and the State as respondents in the matter.
The appeal stated that on 08.06.2022, his son namely Shakeel Ahmed along with his friend Hasnain died in a road traffic accident caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle by respondent No 1 (Shanzey).
He added that the FIR was lodged on 19.06.2022 by the appellant after the burial ceremonies of the deceased, which delay was duly explained in the FIR itself.
It is important to mention here that FIR was registered after the acceptance of petition filed by the appellant under Section 22-A & B CrPC as the police was not ready to register the case.
However, he said that the trial court vide impugned order dated 25.02.2025, has acquitted the respondent No 1 under Section 249-A CrPC on the grounds that there is no probability of conviction of the accused in the case, ignoring the settled principles of law that at the stage of Section 249-A CrPC, only a tentative assessment of evidence is to be made, and not a deep appreciation thereof.
The petitioner contended that the findings of the trial court as regards acquitted accused are fanciful, illogical and based on total disregard of the material and evidence on record.
He also contended that in the haste, the trial court has decided the case in slipshod manner perversely and arbitrarily, which is based on surmises and conjectures.
He added that the trial court has totally ignored the material and evidence on record which has fully implicated the accused with commission of the offence of hit and run of the deceased Shakil Ahmed and deceased Hasnain.
His counsel argued that it was utter surprise and shock to the appellant to see the impugned judgment that the trial court had totally ignored the comprehensive arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant, as well as, even the attendance of the counsel has not been marked in the impugned judgment.
He further argued that the trial court has completely disregarded the evidence of 21 witnesses including eye witnesses, private witnesses and police officials, who had seen the accident and recorded their statements under Section 161 CrPC, without any plausible reason.
He maintained that the trial court has misinterpreted the reports of the Punjab Forensic Science Agency (PFSA) regarding the CCTV footage and wrongly concluded that the identity of the respondent No 1 could not be established, whereas, the entire circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage, presence of the respondent at the scene, and other corroborative evidence, sufficiently linked the respondent with the crime.
Therefore, he prayed to the court to accept this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Islamabad, and direct the trial court to proceed with the trial of the respondent No 1 in accordance with law.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Comments