Court Page #2

and let them go.

Don't do this again.

Move. Move.

Come on.

MUMBAI PRESS ASSOCIATION

[Voice on the P.A. system]

- So I will conclude by saying that if our constitution

believes in the right to life...

then it is the single most violated right.

Because the conditions being created today

are not suitable for survival.

There is another word for such

conditions, but I will not use that word.

Otherwise, I will be arrested for sedition.

Thank you, thank you very much.

Satyajit, thank you so much

for sharing your experiences with us.

That was very insightful,

and also very disturbing.

Next, we have advocate Vinay Vora.

He is a practising criminal lawyer,

who specialises in criminal justice and human rights.

He is also one of the founding members of a

legal centre called Nidaan.

- Ninaad.

- Ninaad, I am sorry.

Good evening everyone.

Today I would like to talk to you

about the Mohsin Parvez case,

or rather multiple cases in which I have been

defending him for the last five years.

Mohsin was first arrested in June 2007, in connection

with the Kalyan bomb blast case.

Now, the police doesn't have any conclusive evidence and

they've rounded up 30-odd suspects,

based on...

Well, we know what.

Mohsin has four alibi witnesses

from his workplace.

So we fight the case, we manage

to get a clean chit by the courts,

and Mohsin is released from jail.

Now, two weeks later, he is re-arrested from his home

on three entirely new charges.

We file a habeas corpus petition, we manage to secure bail,

and the cases go on for two years.

Now it's April 2010, Mohsin is finally being released by

the courts without a single conviction.

On the day of his release, he is stepping out of the jail,

and the moment he steps out,

they arrest him again.

Now, I asked the arresting officer on

what charges is he being arrested,

and they blurted some random charges,

and before we knew it, they had just taken him away.

And at that point, we realised that there was nothing

we could do to stop the arrest.

Now...

What is to be noted here,

is that this is the same modus operandi

used with Vijay Ghagre in Giriagiri,

Chandan Shirke in Malwapur, and countless others;

Interrogation sessions lasting 12-14 hours at a stretch...

-One minute sir...

Proceed.

The accused, Narayan Kamble, age 65,

is charged under Indian Penal Code, Section 306,

Abetment of suicide,

in the death of Vasudev Pawar, age 25,

who was a worker under contract

with the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation.

The deceased person committed suicide

on the night of 24th August, 2012,

by choking himself to death inside a sewer

located at Ram Was Road, Andheri East.

The police, after its thorough investigation, concluded

in its report that it was a clear case of suicide.

No manhole worker,

with an experience of doing the

job for five years, like the deceased,

would go inside the sewers without any kind of

protection to eyes, nose, or skin.

These workers are fully aware of the various

hazardous gases that breed inside the sewers,

and know that they can lead to instant death

if proper precaution is not taken.

When the dead body of the deceased

was recovered from the sewer,

no safety equipment was found near him

even after searching for many hours.

No wounds, injuries, or signs of struggle were

found on Vasudev Pawar's body,

nor did the post-modem show any other cause for

death, other than the poisonous gases which were inhaled.

According to Section 306, if any person commits suicide,

whoever abets the commission of such suicide,

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description

for a term which may extend to ten years,

and shall also be liable to fine.

There is sufficient evidence collected through

police investigation, as presented to your honour,

that the suicide of Vasudev Pawar was provoked by a

performance of accused party,

Narayan Kamble and his troupe, that took

place at Sitladevi Nagar on 21 st August,

is the locality in which the deceased resided, and was

seen in attendance of the performance in question.

It should be noted that the suicide took place

just two days after the performance.

As the statement of an eye-witness, who is willing

to testify in this honourable court,

there was one song performed by the accused,

which coaxed and encouraged manhole workers

to commit suicide

by deeply inhaling the toxic gases

found inside the sewers.

It is no coincidence that the song in question

suggests exactly the method of suicide,

that is, deliberate negligence of safety norms and regulations

by which the deceased took his life.

According to this song, giving up your life is the

one and only rational solution for certain sections of the society

to gain dignity and respect.

Here, Narayan Kamble is openly endorsing and encouraging

an act which is an offence under Section 309.

I would also like to bring to the attention

of the honourable court,

that the accused has been previously charged

under Dramatic Performances Act,

and has been sufficiently warned

to not perform any material

that is seditious in nature,

or harmful to the general society.

In spite of these warnings,

the accused performed the dramatic piece in question

without the approval

of concerned censor authorities,

and with the deliberate intent of causing harm,

inciting seditious sentiments, and

corrupting people present at the performance.

If the accused is granted bail for this non-bailable

and non-compoundable offence,

there is a risk that he will once again

commit the same offence,

as his track record shows complete disregard and

disrespect for the court's orders.

I'm done.

According to the report filed

by the investigating officer,

the death of Vasudev Pawar

is assumed to be an act of suicide.

I would like to request the court to review

this conclusion critically in the light of evidence

that is highly inconclusive and subjective.

As per Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition,

Ninth Volume, page 686,

a finding of suicide must be on evidence of intention.

Every act of self-destruction is, in common language,

described by the word 'suicide',

provided it is an intentional act of a party knowing

the probable consequence of what he is about.

Suicide is never to be presumed.

Intention is the essential legal ingredient.

To attract the ingredients of abetment,

the intention of the accused to aid, or instigate,

or abet the deceased to commit suicide, is necessary.

In this case, let alone intention,

there is absolutely no logical reason or motivation

as to why the accused would abet the alleged suicide.

As for the Dramatic Performances Ad,

which my colleague cited as grounds for rejecting bail-

Your honour, it's a Victorian law dating back to 1876,

and it's up to our judgment about

its relevance in a post-colonial country.

No, but this is not a valid argument.

It is the law, it is there.

Secondly, whether it was a dramatic performance

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes