Responsive image

Ayodhya demolition behind 1993 Mumbai blasts, supreme court told

The Supreme Court was told Tuesday that the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts were linked to the demolition of Ayodhya’s Babri Masjid Dec 6, 1992 and the subsequent riots targeted at the minority community.

In pursuance of narrow ideological designs, “the house of God was demolished in the name of God”, said senior counsel Jaspal Singh, appearing for Yakub Abdul Razak Memon, who was awarded death penalty for the explosions.

The apex court bench of Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice B.S. Chauhan was told that it was the narrowness of the ideology that led to the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992 and desecration of the Golden Temple in Punjab in 1984.

It was in this atmosphere of hurt that Tiger Memon, brother of Yakub Memon, decided to take revenge and found a very willing friend in (don) Dawood Ibrahim to execute his plan.

The apex court is hearing the cross petitions by the Maharashtra government and the convict challenging the trial court judgment.

The court was told that in the blasts case 100 people were convicted, included 12 who were awarded the death sentence, 23 were acquitted and 44 accused were still absconding.

Jaspal Singh said that the trial court judgment of July 27, 2007 awarding punishment to the convicts was nothing but trash. The judgment is trash. It has no legal sanctity. It is no judgment in the eyes of law, he told the court.

The judgment was bereft of any grounds and reasoning supporting the conviction and consequent sentencing. He said that there could not be two judgments – one pronouncing guilt and sentence and the other giving reasons.

The second judgment giving reasons supporting the conviction and sentencing was given on Oct 25, 2007.

The court was told that Yakub Memon was a chartered accountant having a flourishing practice. He came back to the country to stand trial because he believed he had done no wrong and had faith in the countrys judicial system, if not in police.

The senior counsel wondered why a man who was comfortably staying abroad would come back to India to suffer punishment.

The truth of the matter is that the prosecution has not been able to explain why he came back from Dubai. The truth of the matter is that he was very confident of the Indian judiciary,” Jaspal Singh told the court.

Questioning the impartiality of the investigating agency, Jaspal Singh said the agency did not oppose the bail of actor Sanjay Dutt who confessed his guilt after weapons were recovered from him.

The hearing would continue Wednesday.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

© 2021 - Legal News India – News Updates of Advocates, Law Firms, Law Institutes, Courts & Bars of India
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information