Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

In the criminal appeal moved against the acquittal of 32 accused persons in the Babri demolition case, the counsel for the appellants today submitted that the prosecution and the investigation agencies failed to perform their respective duties and did not put up a strong case before the CBI court.

Before the bench of Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Saroj Yadav, senior advocate Syed Farman Naqvi, on behalf of the appellants, argued that the investigating agencies did not investigate all the allegations and the trial court too ignored the statements made by them. 

A division bench of the high court is hearing the arguments on the point of maintainability of the appeal filed by two residents of Ayodhya namely Haji Mahboob Ahmad and Syed Akhlaq Ahmed claiming themselves to be the victim of the Babri demolition incident.

It is the appellants' case that in the incident, besides the Babri structure, many other houses were also burnt and destructed including theirs, therefore, they ought to be considered victims in the case and the appeal against acquittal should be allowed.  

However, the CBI and the accused persons have objected to the maintainability of the appeal stating that the appellants are mere witnesses cited by the prosecution in the case before the trial court, therefore, they do not deserve any locus standi to challenge the trial court judgment.

Senior advocate Mohemmed Amir Naqvi today submitted that it was not the case that the present appellant sat silently as a spectator during the trial but rather tried to point out the injustice that was taking place. "But we are mere private parties. All we could do was file applications. It was the prosecution that should have presented all the facts pertaining to the matter before the trial court," he submitted.

The senior advocate further alleged that the trial court also ignored the statements of the present appellants as witnesses as to how under a conspiracy, the violent mob had burnt several houses and shops beside the Babri demolition.

On the other hand, the counsel for the accused argued that the appellant had filed a separate FIR pertaining to their grievances in the Babri incident, which was tried by a Faizabad Court and acquittal took place in that matter too. He apprise the court that the appellant did not file a revision in that case, instead, they are trying to interfere in the present matter, where they have no locus. 

" As per Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, only the prosecution and the complainant in the case can file an appeal against acquittal. Since the appellants do not fall in the category either of complainant or victim, hence, the appeal filed by them is not maintainable," he contented.

He further informed the court that during the trial, the appellant filed an application for themselves to be considered as victims in the matter, which was rejected by the trial court on August 25, 2020.

However, senior advocate Naqvi submitted that the appellant intended to file a revision against the rejection order, however, they could not do so as within 2-3 days of rejection of their plea, the trial court reserved its judgment in the trial which it pronounced on September 30, 2020.

The court took note of all the submissions made before it and reserved the judgment on the admissibility of the present appeal.

The Special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court at Lucknow on 30 September 2020, acquitted all 32 accused from the charges of criminal conspiracy in the Babri demolition case. The list of accused persons included top BJP leaders LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Sadhvi Ritambhara, Nritya Gopal Das, president of the existing Ram Mandir Trust, Uma Bharti and BJP leader Vinay Singh.

The Special Court had considered the December 1992 incident in which the Mughal-era monument was razed to the ground by a mob of kar sevaks to be accidental rather than planned and had ruled out the conspiracy theories.

A revision was filed against the judgment of the trial court, however, later on, the nature of the plea was changed and the revision was altered into a criminal appeal.