Peaceful Agitation a Fundamental Right of Citizens in Democracy: Mumbai Court

Judge Gavel Law Insider

Shivani Thakur

Published on: April 24, 2022 at 15:09 IST

A Mumbai Court held that peaceful agitation is the Fundamental Right of every Citizen and acquitted five women Accused of unlawfully assembling to protest against no water supply in their area.

All ladies who were agitating on the spot of incident went to their home after giving an understanding by them and on that day no action was taken against those women. In Democratic Country making peaceful agitation is Fundamental Right of citizen.”

“The women were making agitation as there was no water supply in their area for some days. They were sent by the police to their home by giving an understanding. Therefore, there was no reason for the Police to Register First Information Report against them and subsequently arrest them,” Court observed.

The Court said that state has not been able to prove either of the Offenses the five ladies were Booked under.

The Court took note of the Testimony of the other two Independent Witnesses, and Observed that the Testimony of the Independent Witness is different from the Testimonies of the Prosecution Witnesses.

So also, it has come in the Evidence that, at the time of incident there were 35 to 40 women present on the spot of incident who were making agitation. However, the Charge-sheet is filed only against five accused. It is strange that at the time of incident there were 35 to 40 women present on the spot of incident, however the police arrested only one accused on that day and did not arrest other women.”

“The Charge-sheet was filed only against Accused No.1 and thereafter, four accused were arrested after four to five days of incident. The Police did not arrest all women who were making agitation on the spot of incident and who were part of an unlawful assembly”, the Court asked the Prosecution.

The Court said that all the witnesses produce by the Prosecution were all interested Witnesses, Prosecution did not make any effort to produce independent Witnesses.

“Therefore, the independent Witnesses were present on the spot of incident. However, the Prosecution did not examine any Independent Witnesses. When the Independent Witnesses are available on the spot of incident, the Rule of Prudence requires the Evidence of at least one Independent Witness.”

“However, no Single Independent Witness has been examined by the Prosecution. Therefore, it creates doubt about genuineness on the Investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer. “

The Court decided in favour of the five women Arrested and Acquitted them saying there was no need to file a First Information Report against them.

Also Read- A look into Fundamental Rights and Capital Punishment in different Countries

Related Post