LK Advani was acquitted of conspiracy charges in the demolition of the Babri Mosque in 1992
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 by this verdict, mentioned the background to the case and the reasons why they have been acquitted in a 2,300-page sentence. A series of rath yatras by LK Advani had preceded the demolition of the mosque in Ayodhya of Uttar Pradesh on December 6, 1992. It was Advani’s campaign for a Ram temple on the site in Ayodhya that brought the BJP to the center of national attention. Mr. Advani, Mr. Joshi, Uma Bharti and Kalyan Singh, who are among the 32 surviving defendants, were reportedly present near the mosque when it was demolished.
Here are 10 key quotes from the court ruling:
-
“The charge sheet does not contain evidence on which it can be established that the named defendant has incited a riot or was part of it.”
-
It has also been established that on December 6, 1992, around 12 p.m., everything was normal and when Ashok Singhal announced again on how Kar sewa would proceed, a section of Kar sewaks he stirred and began throwing stones at the structure and some broke through barricades and climbed up the disputed structure. Ashok Singhal again asked this group that was part of the Kar sewaks to return, but everyone started attacking him. “
-
“The evidence also suggests that RSS and VHP volunteers handled the arrangements and made announcements on a regular basis. Seating arrangements for women, the elderly, the media, and parking were their responsibility. This indicates the fact that there was no named scheme accused of tearing down the disputed structure on December 6, 1992. “
-
“The group that created a scandal was from a section of the Kar sewaksBut they were definitely hooligans because if they were true believers in Lord Ram they would have heeded Ashok Singhal’s statement that the disputed structure is also a temple and needs to be protected. “
-
As for the prosecution witnesses who describe slogans raised by the defendants and have singled out some defendants saying they lifted the slogan – ek dhakka aur do Babri Masjid all do (give one more push to demolish Babri Masjid) – the charge sheet makes it clear that there were hundreds of thousands of Kar sewaks in the complex and they were raising slogans, on the matter of the named defendants raising these slogans, in this regard no record or matching voice samples have been presented ”.
-
“That the named defendants joined in common cause with the antisocial Kar Sewaks to bring down the disputed structure, there is no evidence on the charge sheet to prove it. The leaders sitting on the stage and those near the Ram chabutara – Ashok Singhal, Vijaya Raje Scindia – did not suspect that a section of the Kar sewaks the disputed structure will be shaken and escalated. “
-
“Which defendant gave what speech on December 6, 1992, the prosecution has not been able to prove it with evidence. The video cassettes that have been presented, their related witnesses have themselves accepted that they are edited and manipulated.”
-
“In order to prove a crime under Section 153 A and 153 A of the IPC (Indian Penal Code), the prosecution has to prove that the defendant made what specific speech that led to enmity between two groups and led to a rift in communal harmony. If the defendant has limited himself to making a speech of incitement only on the grounds that the person cannot be found guilty. “
-
“The evidence relating to the defendants LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Sadhvi Rithambara, Uma Bharti, Vinay Katiyar and Acharya Dharmendra Dev make it clear that they were on the scene at the time of the incident. A detailed examination of the evidence presented against the accused. “
-
“On the issue of defendants raising slogans, the tapes of slogans posed by a specific defendant did not correlate with the voice samples of that specific defendant and presented in court, which is strong evidence as to which defendant raised what specific slogan that led to religion hurt feelings. “
.
