Special Judge SK Yadav said the demolition was the handy work of a few vandals, who did not even care that the idol of Ram Lala under the central dome could also be desecrated in the pandemonium.
- Last Updated: September 30, 2020, 8:32 PM IST
FOLLOW US ON:
The 2,300-page judgment by the Special CBI court in the Babri Masjid demolition case has held that those involved in bringing down the disputed structure in Ayodhya can never be called ‘Ram bhakts’ since their actions affected the secular fabric of the nation.
Exonerating all 32 accused, including BJP leaders LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharti, Special Judge SK Yadav maintained the demolition was the handy work of a few vandals, who did not even care that the idol of Ram Lala under the central dome could also be desecrated in the pandemonium.
The judgment, authored in Hindi, maintains that there was no premeditated conspiracy to raze the structure and late VHP leader Ashok Singhal had in fact exhorted the volunteers (kar sevaks) not to enter the premises or climb atop it.
A group can only be called as vandals having no faith in Lord Ram because they went ahead smashing the structure even though Singhal kept telling them that the disputed structure is also a temple, according to the judgment.
When the structure was being destroyed, the judgment said, Sakshi Sateyendra Das saved Ram Lala’s idol by lifting it with his hands and keeping the same with him until the activities stopped.
Judge Yadav added that the reckless actions by a group of kar sevaks was the reason why the Supreme Court, in its judgment on the title dispute, had said that demolition of the egregious violation of the rule of the law.
“Such kar sevaks can never be called Ram bhakts (disciples of the Lord) because their actions adversely affected the secular fabric of the nation and it also compelled the Supreme Court to make certain observations in its November 2019 judgment,” he said.
The special judge, however, was categorical that there is not a shred of evidence on a meeting of the accused in the case or any plan to demolish the structure nor has any evidence been adduced to show if these accused met each other at any time to hatch the alleged conspiracy.
Judge Yadav also pointed out that ‘kar seva’ itself was not unlawful since it was being carried out following a permission from the Supreme Court, which had not put a cap on the number of people allowed.
Around five lakh kar sevaks had gathered on December 6, 1992, and one group had suddenly gone berserk, even started fighting with other kar sevaks. “How can then it be said that there was a meeting of minds and that all of them had the same objective to bring down the structure?” questioned the court.
The judgment noted that it was only at 4pm in the evening when Section 144 of CrPC was imposed in the area and hence, there was nothing on record to establish that kar sevaks were present on the premises before that either as an unlawful assembly or to perpetuate any criminal act.