In his 2,300-page order, the judge, Surendra Kumar Yadav, said that the demolition was not planned in advance and was the work of “rebel elements (arajak tattva)” among the kar sevaks. Furthermore, the CBI was unable to prove that the accused Sangh Parivar officials were behind any conspiracy to demolish the 16th century structure on December 6, 1992.
He said the CBI was unable to present any conclusive evidence against any defendants. “Even the late VHP leader Ashok Singhal was trying to prevent Kar Sevaks from demolishing the disputed structure because Lord Ram’s idol was also within the structure,” the judge wrote in the verdict delivered on the last day of his tenure. .
The court also accepted the defense’s argument that Ram Lalla’s idols were not removed from the mandir-masjid complex and the priest, Satyendra Das, was left to remove them at the last minute, showing that the defendant had no plans to demolish the building. . structure.
Judge Yadav also agreed with the defense that the structure was demolished by criminals who defied the directive of the BJP and VHP leaders meeting at Ram Katha Kunj to restrict themselves to symbolic kar seva in the vicinity of the now demolished mosque.
Significantly, the judge took into account intelligence contributions from local and central agencies on the possible presence of subversives, some backed by Pakistani agencies and others from J&K, in Ayodhya.
The long-awaited verdict was celebrated by Advani, Joshi and others as a validation of their position that the demolition of the 500-year-old Mughal structure was not part of any premeditated plan, but it did cause disappointment among Muslims. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board called the verdict “incorrect” and said they would appeal against it in the higher court.
The acquittal comes as a result of the Supreme Court verdict that assigns the disputed site of Ayodhya to the Hindus for the construction of Ram Mandir, generating unrest among sectors of Muslims. The second victory for the Hindutva side may increase the unrest.
Prominent Sunni clergyman and AIMPLB member Maulana Khalid Rasheed Firangi Mahali He said that everyone knows how “Babri Masjid was demolished in public view” and “the law of the land was shattered.”
However, BJP, VHP and others were jubilant by what they saw as the second consecutive judicial imprimatur on their position on Ayodhya amid the absence of any indication that the CBI might move the higher court. When asked, CBI’s lawyer Lalit Singh said that a copy of the judgment would be sent to the agency’s headquarters in Delhi, which would make a further decision. BJP has maintained that the destruction of the mosque was not premeditated. VHP and others have attributed the events of the fateful day 28 years ago to the spontaneous outburst of repressed feelings by Hindus. When the accused were acquitted, some of them in court loudly chanted “Jai Shri Ram” in the presence of the judge.
However, Shiv Sena has been a defiant exception and even claimed responsibility for the demolition. Not surprisingly, unlike Congress, its coalition partner in Maharashtra welcomed the outcome.
The conspiracy charge against Advani had been dropped by the Allahabad High Court in 2001, but was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 2017.
In the long-awaited hearing, the judge took his chair in the courtroom at 12:10 p.m. and in five minutes read the operative part of the sentence, pronouncing the acquittal of all the accused. The judge had retired on September 30, 2019, but the Supreme Court had extended his term of service until sentencing.
The judge did not accept the newspapers as evidence, as the original sources for the newspapers were not produced or proven. He also did not rely on photos of the incidents, as his negatives were not produced.
“The video cassettes were not sealed and even the videos were not clear and as such cannot be trusted,” the judge observed.
“We have been reiterating from the beginning that there is no evidence in the case and all the defendants were falsely implicated by the CBI under the influence of the then congressional government,” said defense attorney Vimal Kumar Srivastava.
In his verdict, the judge also observed that there was an intelligence report that an adverse incident could have occurred on December 6, 1992, but it was not investigated. He referred to a note that the then Secretary of the Interior of the Union Prabhat kumar had sent on December 5, 1992, which said that elements backed by Pakistani agencies had been mixed with kar sevaks. A meeting was also held to discuss this note and there were reports that 100 anti-national elements of Udhampur from Kashmir had entered Ayodhya, but this part was never investigated, the court observed.
The CBI had filed a charge sheet in October 1993 against 49 defendants. Of these, 17 defendants, including Ashok Singhal, Bal Thackeray and Vijaya Raje Scindia, no longer exist. The agency produced 351 witnesses and more than 600 written documents, as well as video and audio evidence.
.
