What are the Charges framed in the Babri Masjid Demolition case and What are CBI court?
After a period of 28 years Special CBI
Court, Lucknow has today passed the order od acquittal in the matter of Babri
Masjid Demolition case. The court has acquitted 32 accused, including BJP leaders
like LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Uma Bharti, Kalyan Singh and others along with
the leaders of Sangh Parivar like Champat Rai (VHP leader), Vinay Katiyar (Bajrang
Dal founder) and others.
Here are some of the ‘slogans’ noted
by Jts. Y.R. Tripathi (Allahabad High Court) in his judgement pronounced in
2005, which overruled the judgement of judge V.K. Singh, which discharged d
L.K. Advani. In the case of Murli Manohar Joshi & Ors. v State of Uttar
Pradesh
1. 1. “एक धक्का और दो बाबरी मस्जिद तोड़ दो”
2. “जब कटवे कटे जाएंगे राम राम चिल्लाएंगे”
3. “राम राम सत्य है बाबरी मस्जिद ध्वस्त है” – Uma Bharti
4. “जय श्री राम हो गया काम” – Sadhvi Ritambhara
5. “आयोध्या में मुसलमानो को भागदो, उनको यहाँ बसने नहीं देंगे, हाशिम का मुहाल जलादो” - Ram Chandra Param Hans
Hasim was the person who fought the
case of Babri Masjid from the Sunni Waqf Board.
6. “We have done our
job, अब कमल का फूल खिलाएं”
Charges framed
against the accused
Section – 147, 153(A) r/w 149, 153(B)
r/w 149, 505 and 120(B) of the IPC.
Unlawful assembly u/s 141, says that if 5 or more people have
gathered with a common object in order to do any mischief, criminal trespass or
any other offence. Then u/s 141 it is said if this unlawful assembly is having
the objective of overawe criminal force or show of criminal force in order to
obtain the possession of any property. And also, that when the unlawful assembly
was initiated was lawful but later on converted into an unlawful assembly.
“On 27th
November 1992 the judgement of the Supreme Court which gave the permission of
symbolic ‘kar seva’ along with ‘bhajan kirtan’ was wrong and if it was not been
given by the Supreme Court then the Babri Masjid might be saved” – Faizan Mustafa
Common object is metal attitude for which no direct
evidence is required, it is a question of fact, which will be determined on the
basis of facts and circumstances. In the case of Lal Ji v State of Uttar Pradesh,
the Supreme Court has held that the ‘common intention’ will begather from the
nature of assembly and the behaviour of the assembly members prior, at and
after the incident. In the case of Moti Das v State of Bihar, the Supreme Court
has said that the gist of offence u/s 149 is the conduct of the assembly
members. Section 149 says that the offence of unlawful assembly is for the
larger public interest, in order to maintain public tranquillity and each
person who is a member of unlawful assembly will be guilty of the offence which
is held in order to prosecute the common object. Such offence shall be immediately
connected with the common object of the unlawful assembly to which the accuse
is a member. Such members knew that such offence is likely to happen, then
every member will be equally guilty for the offence.
The video footage which was captured
by various news channels including the BBC and DD news are the evidence to
check the above said common object and common intention of the assembly
members. In which it is shown that BJP leaders and Sangh Parivar were
celebrating the demolition. Even the footage of the speeches is available of
various leaders, before at the time of and after the demolition of Babri Masjid.
Hate Speech u/s 153 (A) means whoever
by spoken words or writing promoted or attempts to promote disharmony or feeling
of enmity or hatred or ill will between people. Intention is not necessary; it
will be inferred from the speech itself.
Criminal Conspiracy u/s 120 is agreement between 2 or more people to do any illegal act or legal act by illegal means. Conspiracy is a matter of inference and no direct evidence is required to prove it, in the case of Devendrapal Singh case.
Refer to the link to understand: Difference between - Common Intention and Criminal Conspiracy
What are CBI
court?
CBI court was established under Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. They were formed in order to transfer
the burden of the judicial system and for speedy disposal of cases, for eg. In rape
cases 30 days’ time is given to the CBI court. It is more or less like a
district court, where the judges. The cases which are delt by the CBI for
investigation purpose are refereed to the CBI court. The cases which involve many
evidences and are complicated and high profile are dealt by CBI court. Almost every
state has a CBI court, and the cases investigated by CBI are referred to the
CBI court. And the judges are not the CBI officer but the judges from the
particular state cadre judiciary.
[Judge Surendra Kumar Yadav]
Special CBI court judge Surendra
Kumar Yadav ruled the judgment after approx.10 minutes of hearing. The decision of the CBI court is challengeable
before a high court. And the order of the High Court then can be challenged
before the Supreme Court. It is a long legal process and it is well said that ‘Justice
delayed is Justice denied’.
Refer the link below for detail case analysis and to know how demolition happened.
RAM JANMABHUMI BABRI MASJID CASE - Part 2 "The Politics behind"
0 Comments