10 Key Quotes From Babri Case Judgment In Which All Accused Acquitted

LK Advani was acquitted of conspiracy charges in the 1992 Babri mosque demolition

Lucknow:
Thirty-two people including top BJP leaders LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti have been acquitted of conspiracy charges in a landmark verdict today in the Babri Masjid demolition case. A special judge, whose term had been extended for this verdict, mentioned the case background and reasons why they have been acquitted in a 2,300-page-long judgment. A series of rath yatras by LK Advani had preceded the demolition of the mosque in Uttar Pradesh’s Ayodhya on December 6, 1992. It was Mr Advani’s campaign for a Ram temple in at the site in Ayodhya that brought the BJP to the national spotlight. Mr Advani, Mr Joshi, Uma Bharti and Kalyan Singh, who are among the 32 surviving accused, were allegedly present near the mosque when it was demolished.

Here are 10 key quotes from the court judgment:

  1. “The chargesheet has no evidence on the basis of which it can be established that the named accused had incited any riot or were part of it.”

  2. “It has also been established that on December 6, 1992, around 12 pm, everything was normal and when Ashok Singhal announced again about how the Kar Sewa would proceed, a section of Kar Sewaks got agitated and stone-pelting on the structure started and some broke barricades and climbed the disputed structure. Ashok Singhal again asked this group that was part of the Kar Sewaks to return, but everyone started attacking him.”

  3. “Evidence also suggests that RSS and VHP volunteers were taking care of arrangements and regularly making announcements. Seating arrangements for women, the elderly, the media and parking was being handled by them. This points to the fact that there was no scheme of the named accused to bring down the disputed structure on December 6, 1992.”

  4. “The group that created a ruckus was from a section of the Kar Sewaks, but they were definitely hooligans because if they were actual believers of Lord Ram they would have paid heed to Ashok Singhal’s statement that the disputed structure is also a temple and you have to protect it.”

  5. “As far as the prosecution witnesses describing slogans raised by the accused and have pointed to some accused saying they raised the slogan – ek dhakka aur do Babri Masjid tod do (give one more push to demolish Babri Masjid) – the chargesheet makes it clear there were lakhs of Kar Sewaks in the complex and they were raising slogans, on the question of the named accused raising these slogans, in this respect no record or matching voice samples have been presented.”

  6. “That the named accused got together in common cause with anti-social Kar Sewaks to bring down the disputed structure, there is no evidence in the chargesheet to prove this. The leaders seated on stage and those near the Ram chabutara – Ashok Singhal, Vijaya Raje Scindia – did not suspect that a section of the Kar Sewaks will get agitated and climb the disputed structure.”

  7. “Which accused person gave what speech on December 6, 1992, the prosecution has not managed to prove this with evidence. The video cassettes that have been presented, their related witnesses have themselves accepted these are edited and tampered.”

  8. “To prove an offence under Section 153 A and 153 A of IPC (Indian Penal Code), the prosecution has to prove that which accused gave what specific speech that led to enmity between two groups and led to a breakdown in communal harmony. If the accused have merely given a inciting speech only on that basis the person cannot be pronounced guilty.”

  9. “The evidence related to accused LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Sadhvi Rithambara, Uma Bharti, Vinay Katiyar and Acharya Dharmendra Dev makes it clear they were on stage at the time of the incident. There has been a detailed examination of the evidence presented against the accused.”

  10. “On the question of the accused raising slogans, the recordings of slogans raised by a specific accused were not correlated with voice samples of that specific accused and presented in court, which is a strong evidence about which accused raised which specific slogan that led to religious sentiments being hurt.”



Source link

By admin

Leave a Reply