Muhammad Aslam Khanzada vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1104 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

Muhammad Aslam Khanzada VS State Ss. 384, 385, 386 & 34---anti-Terrorism act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Extortion, putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion, extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, common intention, act of terrorism---appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Mitigating circumstances---accused were charged for detaining the cousin of complainant for extortion---allegation against the accused "BK" on the face of the record was that he contacted son of the person, who was detained, to make them meet at a location---Call Data Record report of the same was obtained which revealed that the said cell-phone had called the son of detained person on his cell-phone number---In the statement of accused "BK" recorded under S.342, Cr.P.C, when asked whether he had taken Rs.20,000/- from the complainant, said accused stated that he had done so, however further stated that the same was 'professional fees' for getting the person, who was detained in connection with a case, out on bail---Transcript of the video available on the record showed the conversation between that accused and complainant and his uncle---Said video started by accused "BK" talking about helping to engage a lawyer, and then "BK" threatening the complainant of registering cases if he did not pay the money---Throughout the transcript, that accused kept demanding money---Both the eye-witnesses, complainant and father of person who was detained remained consistent when it came to assigning accused "BK" his role, from initially calling the son of person who was detained, to arranging the meeting, to then taking Rs.20,000/- and negotiating throughout the incident---Evidence of all the witnesses was consistent on all material particulars of the case---although there were minor contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, the same were not material and certainly not of such materiality so as to affect the prosecution case---Defence could not point out any material discrepancy in the evidence of the eye-witnesses---Therefore, prosecution had discharged its burden to prove the charge against the accused "BK" beyond reasonable doubt---However, considering the mitigating circumstances, such as the amount extorted being only Rs.20,000/-, the accused being only 29 years old and having his old parents to look after and the prayer advanced by the counsel for the accused essentially placing him at the mercy of the Court, the sentence awarded to the accused was modified to the term already undergone by him with fine---appeal was disposed of with modification in sentence.

Muhammad Aslam Khanzada vs State Ss — 2024 PCrLJ 1104 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ