Actor Sanjay Dutt was today sentenced to a five year jail by the Supreme Court of India in a case which has spanned nearly 2 decades. I wholeheartedly agree with the decision but my question is that can a man be jailed for an offence he has committed 20 years ago and is repenting his crime.
In 1993, Mumbai was rocked by serial blasts in major junctions and business hubs like Plaza Cinema, Century Bazar, Bombay Stock Exchange, Air India Building, Passport Office, Zaveri Bazaar etc. 257 people were officially declared dead, nobody knows the unofficial count. More than 2000 people were injured on that sinister day.
Sanjay Dutt who was then in his 34 years old and had kept a AK 47 assault rifle and a 9mm pistol illegally with him which he had acquired from the accused of 1993 Mumbai Blasts. The TADA Court had acquitted him from any involvement in the bomb blasts. He has already served 18 months in jail from 1993 to 2007.
Though it has been categorically proved that Sanjay Dutt is guilty of the possession of illegal arms. But the man has been repenting his guilt for past two decades. The jail term is given in a civilised society to criminals so that they can repent their crimes and turn into a new leaf to return back to civilised society. Every where in the world the jail is known as correction facility. This means that the convict is given a chance to correct him or herself and make him/her a better individual. Once the person is deemed to have corrected himself and is no longer considered a danger to the society he or she is let out of the jail to live a normal life. The prison term is often awarded based on the seriousness of the crime and it ensures that a criminal is reformed and becomes a better civilised individual who can behave responsibly in a civil society and is no longer deemed to be harmful to the society as a whole after he/she is released.
In Sanjay Dutt's case the justice has been delivered by the Supreme Court of India all right, but way too late. The man charged of guilt against the civil society is already repenting it and accepting that he had done something wrong. So without questioning the wisdom of the Hon Supreme Court, plainly from a humane point of view sending a person to jail for the crime which he is already very shameful about and cursing himself for committing it, the justice came far far late. If this sentence would have been given to him 15 years ago, may be it would have made sense in making him a better individual.
The views are my personal, please post your comments on the same.