According to details, Sharjeel Khan has admitted to committing 4 out of 6 crimes he was accused of. He admitted being contacted by a bookie, finalizing deal with bookie and negligence to reporting the matter to relevant authorities. He, however, has denied charge of acting on the deal made between him and bookie.
I am not sure, what people are trying to prove here. I am not a lawyer, therefore can't explain properly, but my interpretation of the situation is
1. He admitted being contacted by a bookie - nothing wrong in that, anyone can meet in his personal time, even if the guy is a bookie. I have friends/relatives convicted or under prosecution coming to my home - police won't arrest me for that.
2. Finalizing deal with bookie - this one is a mild crime. This means, the intention was there.
3. Negligence to reporting the matter to relevant authorities - this one is a medium crime. His intention was there & he decided to stick on that by not reporting. Even after agreeing a deal (with monetary transaction), one can change mind & report to authority - that could have been covered by a reprimandation + monetary fines.
4. It's not written here, but I presume (& read in other threads), that he had taken money to act according to the plot - almost certainly deserves highest punishment.
Now, his lawyers & X PAK cricketers are fighting on the thin line of - "didn't act according to the plot". Which, to me has very little weight. Because -
1. I am not sure what was the actual deal - spot fixing is not about direct W/L, rather it's on particular event, even as silly as bowling a No ball. Therefore, "weather he acted upon the deal" can be brought into consideration, only if he can prove what exactly was "initial term of the deal". But, that actually proves point No. 1 to 4, which are enough for 5 years, I believe.
2. Weather he acted upon the deal or not (in case, SK provides evidence of initial "terms of the deal"), doesn't bring any favor for his cause. Because, "acting upon" is not entirely on him - whatever the deal was, might not be "acted upon" despite his full commitment. Like, one can over step by a foot, but it'll not serve the "deal", if umpire overlooks that.
For the sake of saying, if I take that, he changed his mind & decided to play "honest" - this has no legal merit, because every convict will pretend to do so in trial. He had enough time to inform even his Captain regarding this, just before going to bat.
It's like - I accepted money to kill someone, then I went to the spot as per plan, shoot at the person as well. For his good fortune, just before pulling trigger, he guy bent down (or my arm holding Pistol had shaken a bit) & survived with a mild concussion. Now, once police has caught me red-handed with ballistic reports, finger prints & the money at my wallet - my Lawyer is arguing that, I changed my mind at last moment & did deliberately shoot to miss.
Don't see SK surviving here - if not PCB, ICC'll intervene here (though pointless to punish someone for fixing a Franchise T20)
Among all other statements by MoYo, this one is a gem -
"To entrap an innocent person like this is not right" - it reminds me of his Captaincy days - CLUE LESS.
