The 2,300-page verdict of the special court of the Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI), which acquitted the 32 people accused of conspiring to demolish Babri Masjid in 1992, focused mainly on the lack of credible evidence provided by the investigating agency.
Judge Surendra Kumar Yadav determined that absent this, it could not be proven that there was a prior conspiracy to bulldoze the disputed structure. Interestingly, the 1992 Liberhan Commission report created to investigate the demolition concluded that there was one.
SEE | Babri Demolition Verdict: What’s Next? Yug Mohit Chaudhry | On the record
In court, CBI argued that provocative speeches made by senior leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad provoked kar sevaks (Hindu religious volunteers) who gathered in Ayodhya for several days prior to December 6, 1992.
Also read: ‘Babri demolition verdict an inspiration for the temple in Mathura’: Karnataka minister
To reinforce his claim, he presented newspaper reports, photographs, video recordings of the demolition, 351 witnesses and the police complaints that were filed hours after the mosque was razed.
But he had problems from the beginning.
During the trial, BJP veteran LK Advani and MM Joshi’s attorney MP Ahluwalia noted that in two FIRs filed on December 6, 1992, the timing of the demolition was recorded differently and raised doubts about the veracity of the proof.
The first FIR (197/92) presented by Police Station Officer Priyamwadnath Shukla at Ram Janmabhoomi Police Station mentioned that the time of the demolition was 12pm. This FIR blamed unnamed kar sevaks.
The second FIR (198/92), also filed at Ram Janmabhoomi Police Station, by Deputy Inspector Ganga Prasad Tewari recorded the time of the demolition as 10 am. This FIR blamed Advani, Joshi and other leaders.
Ahluwalia argued that the two FIRs, filed at the same police station, were incongruous because the second FIR – naming the politicians – was an afterthought presented to falsely incriminate people. “During the trial of the case, Priyamwadnath Shukla (then SHO) could not justify why this was done,” says the sentence.
Also read: Left-wing Muslim leaders condemn the verdict on the demolition of Babri Masjid
The second problem turned out to be voice samples.
During the trial, the prosecution alleged that Advani and Joshi, along with others, were present on a stage and raised slogans that ultimately caused the mob to demolish the disputed structure.
But the prosecution did not present to the court recordings of any slogans raised by them or of their voice samples, and defense attorneys were able to argue that the recordings were muffled and that the speeches were not proven to be actually delivered by the defendants. The court noted that this could have been valuable evidence.
The third problem for the prosecution was the evidence presented in the form of newspaper articles, videos and photographs.
Yadav said in the ruling that the newspaper articles were not sent in their original form, the videos were not certified by a forensic laboratory, and the photographs were delivered without negatives.
What also went against the prosecution was that none of the local Ayodhya residents testified against any of the defendants to show that they incited the mob.
“During the investigation, no one came and testified that they were involved in the demolition of the disputed structure and this is also correct in stating that no one said during the investigation that they were moved by the speeches of the leaders and participated in the demolition.” the verdict scored.
The court also observed that at that time there were intelligence reports that indicated that some “antisocial elements” could commit some “unjustified act”.
The court said that witness Anju Gupta had given a statement in court that some ‘thieves and criminals’ were part of the crowd. Gupta was an additional police superintendent, stationed in Ayodhya during the demolition. She testified in court.
.
