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.
RE:General commentary
by nikhil gupta on Aug 03, 2007 02:05 AM Permalink
The weapons that were found,the AK-56 gun and the hand grenades,chances are less that the intent behind such sophisticated weapons was defence.(not that i mean that he intended to harm someone either).most reports said that he acquired those weapons just because he was asked to by his den friends who probably were connected to the underworld n wanted to hide those weapons for possible future use.. whatever it may be,his stupidity(knowing the situation n then ignoring the facts) or whatever..he DID commit a crime ..If we are to bring about positive changes in our system then we ought to accept the jury's decision in all circumstances..but he has already been in jail fer a year and a half already although the case was under trial den (completely agreeing with Mr Ramesh Kapoor that the time taked to reach a final verdict for all was too long.. ~~NOTE : the judges being changed twice during the whole trial does raise some eyebrows definitely,with political leaders n vandettas changing often~~ But still he has served in jail for some time and frm the looks of it appear to bea changed person .. forgive me if im wrong !! I cannnot even imagine what the relatives of people who lost their loved ones in the '93 blasts would have gone through and my heart goes out to all of them ..Bt then again..was the proof enough for a 6 year rigorous imprisonment..{please leave aside the role of the media,they'r only here for the TRP's.period
RE:General commentary
by Sameer Bhagwat on Aug 03, 2007 01:20 AM Permalink
Do you need 25 hand-granades and 2 AK 47 sub-machineguns to protect your family? If he had fired the weapons, he would have been in a much bigger trouble. Luckily he did not fire them, and only got 6 years.
RE:General commentary
by crazyforsense on Aug 03, 2007 01:24 AM Permalink
2 AK 47's - yes, probably they are needed.
25 hand grenades.....probably not.....in any case that is immaterial from a technical viewpoint of the case. The charge is - Possesing a fire arm(not arms) illegally.
Assuming all you stated is true, why didn't the prosecution charge him with illegal possession of the hand grenades?
RE:General commentary
by Sandeep on Aug 03, 2007 01:29 AM Permalink
and also hand grenades and 2 other guns were not asked for by Sanjay. They just came extra and he did ask providers to take them back as soon as he saw them.
RE:General commentary
by aseem on Aug 03, 2007 01:36 AM Permalink
there is a lawful method to get arms for family protection but it does not allow you to take AK-47. Sanjay could have gone for best riffles with a proper license. Issue is that he never thought that indian system can ever make any harm to him.
RE:General commentary
by Sandeep on Aug 03, 2007 01:44 AM Permalink
He should have probably tried license but do you know how long it takes to get license approved? I think it would have been long after the riots ended and Sanjay did say he needed gun only till riots for protection. This was not usual circumstance my friend which is why a lot of people feel sentence could have been more lenient.
