The article is written more like a general commentary.
Unfortunately it doesn't answer my questions- 1. Why is it wrong for Dutt to possess arms in that context (riots in the background) to protect his family? 2. He never fired the weapon, he procured it illegally for the purpose of defending his family in a frenzied atmosphere. So why wasn't he given the benefit of the doubt.
6 years still is incommensurate with the 'crime'. No jail time and a hefty fine should have been it.
