Mumbai: The Sunjay Dutt Case – Has Justice been Done?
by Nina Rai
Daijiworld Media Network
August 23, 2007
- Which Camp Is Right - Pro or Anti?
Latest pics from Rons Bantwal - Daijiworld Media Network:
By now everyone is well aware of the fact that Hindi matinee star Sanjay Dutt has been sentenced to six years rigorous imprisonment by the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) Court's special judge P D Kode on July 31, 2007.
Though he has now been released on interim bail and has already reached home as this is being published (August 23, 2007), nothing much has changed in the overall situation he is at present undergoing.
The current status of the case is that Sanjay Dutt’s lawyer Satish Maneshinde has since then filed an appeal against his sentence in the Supreme Court, seeking bail and challenging Dutt’s conviction under the Arms Act. And as things stand a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan of the Supreme Court stated that they were releasing Dutt and others while restoring “status quo ante sentencing”.
This in effect meant Dutt was to be released after Yerwada prison officials got a copy of the Supreme Court order, which they did receive and set him free on Thursday August 23 morning.
The bail is valid till the time the special TADA court provides him with a copy of its judgement. Once Dutt receives the detailed copy of the same, he will have to surrender before the court. But by then he can apply for regular bail based on the judgement.
So let us go back in time, and start from where this whole episode unfolded.
Beginning of the Dutt saga:
To begin this roller-coaster saga, Dutt was first arrested on April 19, 1993, for his alleged involvement in the 1993 serial bomb blasts, which rocked Mumbai city, killing 257 and injuring 713 people.
On November 28, 2006, Dutt was exonerated of terrorism and conspiracy charges by Judge Kode who said in his ruling in the open court, "During my reasoning I have not found him (Sanjay) to be a terrorist." But he was convicted under the Arms Act for possessing illegal weapons, viz, an AK-56 rifle and a 9-mm pistol.
According to the prosecution case Dutt had first come into possession of these weapons during the riots that had broken out in Mumbai following the destruction of ''Babri Masjid'' at Ayodhya in December 1992.
The CBI filed a case in the TADA court alleging that gangster Abu Salem and his men had visited Dutt's house on January 16, 1993 and provided him with three AK-56 rifles, 25 hand grenades, and one 9 mm pistol and cartridges.
Dutt had returned two AK-56 rifles, the hand grenades and the cartridges to film producers Hanif Kadawala and Samir Hingora who were the co-accused in the case. He had, however, kept one of the AK-56 rifles with himself.
Dutt returns from Mauritius to surrender:
Further the prosecution stated that Dutt was shooting in Mauritius when he was informed by his equally famous father, the late Sunil Dutt, that the Mumbai police was investigating his role in the 1993 blasts. On hearing this, he is understood to have instructed his friends to secretly destroy the rifle.
Accordingly the rifle was destroyed by his friends Yusuf Nalwalla, Kersi Adjania, Russi Mulla and Ajay Marwah. The rifle and cartridges had formed part of the consignment that had been smuggled into India, according to the CBI.
After his arrest, Sanjay Dutt spent 16 months in the jail and was later released on bail. During this time, nearly the entire Indian film industry supported Dutt and stood by him throughout his ordeal.
Two distinct camps – pro and anti Dutt:
As the curtains finally came down on this case after more than 13 years, in the meantime two distinct camps sprung up. One camp which feels the sentence is not fair. This camp obviously includes the film fraternity, which has almost Rs 100 crore riding on Dutt's forthcoming Bollywood projects, all of which have been jeopardized owing to the sentencing.
Many Bollywood personalities have openly criticized it, saying the six-year sentence meted out to Dutt is way too harsh. Well-known director Mahesh Bhatt who regarded the sentence as excessive, declared, "The hallmark of a civilized society is that it seeks to reform and not punish, and justice tempered with mercy is what we think is the defining feature of any civilized society."
Voices in Dutt’s favour:
In this sympathetic camp there are several people who empathize with Dutt. Because, by the time Sanjay was charged under TADA, most people had begun to feel sorry for him. He had lost his mother in tragic circumstances, had overcome a serious drug addiction problem, had seen his marriage break up and had also suffered during the Mumbai riots.
And when the government could not control the riots, his father had even offered to resign from the Lok Sabha. Moreover, his family too had been threatened by different Hindu communalist organizations.
And so many feel he was justified in buying unlicensed and banned weapons to protect his family. It was possible that he bought this rifle from one of the many Dawood henchmen who thronged the film industry but, then, who else do you buy an AK-47 from, if not a gangster?
This camp, by a broad general consensus, opines that he made a mistake by keeping in custody an illegal weapon. However, their contention is that he never used it to kill or threaten anybody. Maybe he had attended parties where underworld don Dawood and his fellow henchmen were present. But it is not such a crime to regard him as a criminal. If so, then everybody else present there, should be regarded as such, they opine.
How many politicians with criminal backgrounds have got this sort of verdict in their lifetime? Maybe it’s because of his star status. The judicial system is meant to punish the criminal, in order to deter future incidence of crime. But when somebody has left behind his past misdeeds far behind and is already on the path of reformation and virtue, is it fair to throw such a person in a dark cell where hardened criminals are holed up, the pro camp question with obvious distaste.
Anti-Dutt voices:
The second camp on the other hand feels that Dutt has been given what was his just due because the others have not been let off lightly either, so why should he be given any special treatment because of his celebrity status.
When all citizens are considered equal in the eyes of the law, why Dutt must be treated any differently, is the moot point. He was 34 years at that point and not a minor, and hence mature enough at the time of buying illegal weapons to distinguish right from wrong and therefore is justified in getting a sterner punishment.
For instance a person by the name of Abhimanyu Altekar was acquitted by a session court 16 years after he was arrested on false charges of planting a bomb outside the house of a Marathi daily editor in 1990.
He had not been granted bail in the meantime, so languished in jail. On the other hand Dutt was granted bail when he pleaded that he was the only earning member of his family. And he hence enjoyed freedom for more then 13 years, when the case was going on.
The crime that Sanjay is accused of is far more serious. He possessed an assault rifle at the peak of the Mumbai riots. When asked if he owned such a gun, he had denied it and then later he slyly arranged for the weapon to be destroyed.
The charge against him is that of possessing an unlicensed gun and this gun is not a mere hunting gun and can only be used to kill people -- was identical to the charge against several others who were also jailed for apparent involvement in the Mumbai riots. But while the other TADA detenues languished in jail unsung, Sanjay has became a kind of national symbol of injustice.
Former Mumbai police commissioner A S Samra too feels the sentence was fair and is reported to have said, "You've got to see the case in the light of the larger conspiracy in which ISI and Pakistan had to send these weapons to Bombay to use against the majority community in case there were communal riots. Just possession of such deadly weapons is punishable by 5-10 years."
Further he felt that the nature of the offence was serious enough and Sanjay Dutt had acquired the weapons from the underworld. People are getting sentimental because he is a celebrity and the film industry and other vested interests are making it seem like Sanjay was a victim instead of being the accused. But the "law cannot afford to be sentimental and it has to treat him like a common citizen."
Status of the case once sentence declared by TADA court:
As things stood after the verdict by the TADA Court, a lot of support for Dutt gathered momentum in the form of online website petitions, sms’s and signature campaigns – which in reality amounts to another public trial of a judicial case. And though Dutt's supporters feel they have the right to voice their concern, experts are clear that this is a case of subversion of judiciary for government advocates.
Public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam too was in no mood to accept the voices of dissent and so even contemplated taking legal action against those who started the campaign as he considered such a campaign as criticizing the order of the court (before the prisoner seeks relief) and this certainly amounts to contempt of court, he averred.
Conclusion:
In the light of all these facts and observations, one thing which is very apparent is that the Dutt case has generated a great deal of interest in recent times, whether pro or anti with regard to the trial. But, at the end of the day, the judiciary and the judicial system are supreme, and so law has to take its own course and once it reaches its logical end leading to a final verdict, that final judgment must be accepted by one and all in the right spirit and abided by all, for a civilized society to move forward and function smoothly.
However, no system which is man-made is faultless nor flawless whether the judiciary or any other. Therefore it needs regular overhauling from time to time, for it to serve the purpose of justice.
And the first priority in this instance should be a procedure to expedite the process of justice within a set time frame, in any matter that comes up before the court. As the saying goes ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ and let this truism not be said of the Dutt trial as well.