Minutes after it set in that the sessions judge had convicted actor Salman Khan for a grave offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment, the celebratory chants of "Jai Ho" were few and far between. In court, too, the swarm of lawyers who had come to "witness a landmark verdict" were muted in their reactions. For most part, lawyers, especially the seniors did not wish to give views on the verdict without reading the reasoned judgment copy, which has yet to be given to the actor.

But the sweeping guilty verdict left more people feeling a little sombre. A sense of "harshness" is what many said they perceived in the sentencing. Top corporate lawyer Fereshte Sethna said, "It is a harsh sentence. It should have been lesser than five years, even if the conviction is correct, coming as it does almost 13 years later."

Ram Jethmalani, the former Union law minister and India's top criminal law counsel, was non-committal since he didn't know the facts of the case and verdict. But he said, "The only option is to appeal now against the verdict-both on the question of conviction and sentence."

Other lawyers were more vocal. "The sentence, is unjustifiably harsh and misappropriate to the offence and is against the basic principles of criminal jurisprudence," said advocate Shrikant Bhat, also a criminal law expert. He reasoned, "It is the unassailable principle of criminal jurisprudence that the punishment must fit the offender and not the crime. Section 304-II of IPC (culpable homicide) gives the largest latitude (discretion) to the judges. The judge had the discretion to sentence Salman Khan even for one day or only with fine."

When it comes to sentencing, the courts must take into consideration the conduct of the convict too. "Salman Khan's outstanding charity work, often without seeking any credit, his care for cancer patients ought to have weighed with the courts," said Bhat. "Secondly, not having licence has no logical relation to rashness or negligence-one can be rash even after having licence-most drivers who are convicted have the licence. The other way, a man may be an excellent and safe driver and not have a licence."

Since Salman Khan was 37 years old when the crash occurred, some lawyers feel that he could have even been considered for being released on a bond under the Probation of Offenders Act. Character and general conduct of the accused is relevant to the principles of sentencing, they say.

Salman's lawyer Shrikan Shivade's plea for a lenient sentence was not accepted by the court. Prosecutor Pradip Gharat's submission was that as a hero, Salman's actions are watched and followed by his legions of fans and an exemplary punishment must be given.

Mrinalini Deshmukh, a family court lawyer, also said that the exemplary part was excessive. CBI counsel H S Venegaonkar also wondered what was the rush to pronounce the verdict if the judgment was not ready. "It could have waited a day or two," he said.