The Verdict

Sanjay Dutt was charge-sheeted by the CBI for possession of weapons which included three AK 56 rifles, hand grenades and ammunition. These weapons were allegedly meant to be used in the 1993 Mumbai blasts. Last week a special TADA court gave its final verdict in which Dutt was convicted under the Arms act and not under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act.

The full verdict of the case is not yet available to the public. But I must say that I am bewildered and disappointed with the verdict. Dutt’s argument had been that he had the weapons for self defence and that he was not a terrorist. Hence he should not be convicted under the TADA. Now, the judge has said in his verdict that Dutt did possess weapons illegally. But he also said that he buys Dutt’s contention that the weapons could have been for self defence. He also said that there was not enough evidence to prove that Dutt was a terrorist. But apparently there was enough evidence to prove that Dutt was in illegal possession of weapons and hence the conviction under the Arms act. Now, can any sensible person justify the possession of AK 56 rifles and grenades for self defence? Isn’t that ridiculous?

Among the co accused in the case were those who allegedly delivered the Arms to Dutt and those who tried to destroy the evidence by melting the rifles. Both of these men were convicted under TADA. But Dutt was seemingly just an innocent person caught in the middle guilty of simply possessing illegal weapons!!

I am sure that money, power and politics had their role to play in this case, as is common in such cases in this country. The fact that his sister is a MP of the ruling congress party and Dutt himself is a Bollywood celebrity should have been indication enough that one couldn’t expect a fair verdict. I have tried to gauge people’s opinion on the verdict. The responses ranged from disappointment to indifference. And then there were some whose thinking was something on these lines:

‘C’mon, he may have stored the weapons for some reason or pressure or whatever… but for sure, this guy is not a terrorist! He is a good actor. He may have been misguided in the past but now he is a reformed man trying to live a decent life. Whatever happened in the past is past. He is now trying to live a peaceful life. Why do you want to punish him now?’

Now what can I say about this. It is true that the objective of punishment is to reform a person. But there is another very important objective. The act of punishing a guilty man serves as an example to the society and shows that the laws of the land are functioning. This deters potential criminals from indulging in such activities. If the punished is a celebrity or an important person, the example is that much stronger. In the end it is the society which is benefited.

Sanjay Dutt, his family and his fans are happy that he escaped the TADA conviction. Of course they believe that this guy is a transformed man. Maybe they are true. But this verdict is one more nail in the coffin in which lies the nation’s legal system.