Nearly 28 years after a mob brought down the Babri Masjid , a special CBI court on Wednesday acquitted all the 32 accused including BJP veterans LK Advani and M M Joshi, in the case citing lack of evidence, especially to prove the charge of conspiring to tear down the 16th century monument in Ayodhya.

The case relates to the razing of the mosque in on December 6, 1992, which triggered riots for several months leaving nearly 2,000 dead across the country.

‘Feel blessed’

The BJP veterans welcomed the verdict with Advani underlining that it vindicated his commitment towards the Ramjanmabhoomi movement. “I also feel blessed that this judgement has come in the footsteps of another landmark verdict of the Supreme Court given in November 2019, which paved the way for my long cherished dream of seeing a grand Shri Ram Mandir at Ayodhya, the foundation laying ceremony of which was held on 5th August, 2020,” Advani said in a statement.

Joshi congratulated the people who brought the truth before the court.

‘Egregious violation’

The Congress said the verdict ran counter to the Supreme Court judgement in the case as also the Constitutional spirit. “The Supreme Court in its judgement on November 9 clearly held that demolition of Babri Masjid as a clear illegality and “egregious violation of the rule of law. The entire Country witnessed a deep-rooted political conspiracy by BJP-RSS and its leaders to destroy the country’s communal amity and brotherhood for usurping power at any cost,” said Congress chief spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala.

‘Travesty of justice’

The Left parties termed it as a “complete travesty of justice”. “If all charged with conspiring to demolish the mosque are acquitted, then what happened? It self imploded,” said CPM General Secretary Sitaram Yechury, insisting that the CBI must appeal against the verdict.

Pronouncing the verdict, the Special CBI judge said there was no conclusive proof nor is there any direct witness who has actually seen the accused sitting in a room and conspired to bring down the disputed structure.

The judge Surendra Kumar Yadav said the demolition was carried out by “anti-social elements” and, in fact, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) leader and an accused in the case, the late Ashok Singhal, urged them not to damage the disputed structure because it housed the Ram Lulla idols. The accused had been charged with conspiring to disturb public tranquillity under section 120-B of the CrPC read with Sections 147, 149 and 114 of the IPC.

“It is established that the RSS/VHP volunteers were constantly trying to restore order. Arrangements had been made for parking and seating was organised for women, elderly persons and the media which indicates that the accused had not conspired to bring down the mosque on December 6, 1992. There was a separate group of volunteers who were indeed violent and aiming to create trouble. If they had been believers and had faith in Lord Ram, then they would not have destroyed it because Ashok Singhal had said the structure was a temple and it housed the idols of Ram Lulla in its sanctum sanctorum . In fact, these anti-social elements were destroying even the idols of Ram Lulla and somehow, Sakshi Satyendra Das managed to save the idols,” said the judge in his 2,300-page order.

He said the elements who brought down the disputed structure “could not have been followers of Lord Ram because they destroyed the structure that housed idols and created communal disharmony in the country”.

“There is no evidence to link these anti-social elements with the accused and whether they hatched the same plan together,” he said.

“So far as the question of the accused persons inciting the Kar Sewaks (volunteers) to bring down the structure is concerned, there are two distinct processes – one for the accused to incite the Kar Sewaks to do it under Section 114 IPC and the second, to establish whether someone is conspiring to do a criminal act under Section 120-B of the CrPC Section 120-B and 114 IPC cannot go together. The charge is, therefore, not proved against the accused,” said the Judge.

comment COMMENT NOW