Tapes don’t show leaders egging mob

The CBI had introduced the video tapes as part of evidence in the demolition case in which Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani, Union Human Resource Development Minister M.M. Joshi and BJP leader Uma Bharti are among the eight accused being tried by the special court here.

While none of the video cassettes contained footage of the top BJP leaders instigating the karsevaks to demolish the mosque, the CBI said the audio cassette contained the voice of Sadhvi Ritambhara urging the mob to demolish it. However, the defence counsel objected that based on the audio tape, it could not be said for certain that the voice in it was that of Sadhvi Ritambhara.

‘‘There has been no evidence suggesting that top BJP and VHP leaders were directly involved in instigating the mob which gathered at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992. These leaders have only been shown as being present there that day,’’ said Mahipal Singh Ahluwalia, Advani’s counsel.

The screening of the cassettes began at 11 am and went on for nearly 110 minutes during which the court scribbled ‘‘vital points’’.

The hearing will continue tomorrow and the defence counsel will advance his arguments over the charges.

After hearing arguments of the defence counsel, the Special Judicial Magistrate will finally decide whether the CBI had made out a prima facie case for trial, and if he is satisfied with the case, charges will be framed against Advani and other top leaders.

The CBI said that it had ‘‘oral evidence’’ against all the eight accused in the case, including Advani, Joshi and Bharti. ‘‘We have oral evidence to substantiate our charges that top leaders, including Advani, Joshi and Uma Bharti, had provoked the karsevaks. The video clippings have confirmed their presence at the site on that day,’’ said CBI counsel S.S. Gandhi.

The local Bar Association had objected to the screening of the video cassettes inside the chamber of the Special Judge, saying they should be screened in an open court. ‘‘This is unjust and unlawful. The local administration had a role in holding the proceedings in-camera,’’ alleged S.S. Pandey, a lawyer.