For millions of his fans across the country, the six-year jail term handed down to actor Sanjay Dutt on Tuesday by the special TADA court in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts may have come as a shock. They had hoped that the court would take into account their “Munna bhai’s” good public standing and behaviour while pronouncing the quantum of punishment to him as one of the 100 accused persons convicted in connection with the serial blasts. The judgment, obviously, is saddening to his friends and fans alike.
One must, however, spare a thought for special TADA court judge P D Kode and his challenge of upholding the law of the land in a case that had shaken the country to its roots. The serial blasts had killed over 200 innocent persons, injured more than 700 persons while also sowing the seeds of terror in the country’s financial capital. For Kode to err in his verdict in favour of one accused on grounds other than law would have been a sure invitation for others to question fairness and impartiality of the judgment in its entirety. His job is to uphold the majesty of law and as the adage goes: “may you ever be so high, but the law is above you.” That is precisely what Justice Kode seems to have confined himself to while deciding on the case.
Now that the quantum of punishment to all the 100 convicts – death penalty for 12 and life term for 20 others and varying prison terms for others - has been pronounced, it is expected that the convicted persons, including Dutt, would appeal against the judgment in the Supreme Court. Already a petition is pending in the apex court, questioning Dutt’s trial under Arms Act as opposed to the trial of most of the other 123 accused persons under the more stringent TADA. The ground for this challenge is that Dutt was in illegal possession of an AK-56 rifle – a “mass destruction” weapon not covered under the Arms Act. The actor’s defence that he had acquired the weapon for “self-defence” has not carried conviction with the judge who pointed to his acquaintance with main conspirators like Anees Ibrahim and Dawood Ibrahim. Dutt himself might not have committed any crime, but he stood convicted for his association with the main perpetrators of the crime. Kode, therefore, could not have treated Dutt differently in the eyes of law.