Demand to pardon Sanjay Dutt is misplaced
Going by the cacophony of support for film star Sanjay Dutt after the Supreme Court handed him a five-year jail sentence under the Arms Act, it would appear that the apex court has committed a huge blunder and a travesty of justice! Sundry personalities, ranging from a former judge of the Supreme Court to politicians to actors, directors and producers, have not only slammed the verdict but also pushed for remission of the punishment. Their contention that Dutt should have been let off on probation is basically four-fold: That the convict is an innocent and large-hearted man who erred without understanding the consequences; that he is not a terrorist but he merely possessed arms illegally; that he has a wife and children to take care of; and, that he has suffered enough, having already spent some 18 months in prison. None of these points will have escaped the scrutiny of the apex court before it pronounced its verdict. That is perhaps the reason why the film actor was given the bare minimum sentence of five years — down from six years the trial court had mandated. Given the evidence about Dutt's involvement in keeping at his home arms such as an AK 56 — and indeed the film star's confession to the same — the court had no reason to exonerate him. Nor do his supporters for spreading propaganda that the court has been harsh on him. After all, the fact that he is a large-hearted man does not in any way mitigate the crime which he committed; nor does the fact that he has a family. Many of the accused who have been tried and sentenced along with Dutt in the case have families, and they must be as large-hearted with their friends and relatives as the film star is. It does not mean that their punishment too must be waived off. As for the claim of innocence, the truth is that Dutt had been in constant touch with the likes of Abu Salem and Anees Ibrahim — both well-known gangsters whose involvement in some of the worst terrorist attacks in the country, particularly the 1993 Mumbai blasts case in connection with which Dutt had been tried — is public knowledge. But now, the film actor's supporters want people to believe that Dutt was unaware of the notorious reputation of these people. He was not a babe in the woods when he stocked the weapons illegally in his house 20 years ago — he was over 30 years of age then and knew well that he was getting sucked into a conspiracy against the country. As for the contention that he is not a terrorist, nobody is suggesting that he is. Indeed, the film star must consider himself lucky that the prosecution did not challenge in the Supreme Court, his acquittal by a lower court, on charges of terrorism.
And, those who believe that Dutt has suffered ‘enough', must know that there is a law of the land which decides on the quantum of punishment considered appropriate for an accused. The Supreme Court turned down his plea for probation on the ground that the charges proved against him were of a grave nature. If the film star is dissatisfied, he can file a review petition. If the Government of Maharashtra thinks that he deserves mercy, it can petition the Governor for remission of the sentence. Sanjay Dutt's supporters must seek remedies within the law and not through misplaced emotional appeals.