Justice Sudhir Aggrawal
Vol 15
page 3646-3655 ( page 147-156/251) para 3628-3629
http://www.rjbm.nic.in/sa/Judgment%20RJ ... Vol-15.pdf
Quote:
3628. PW-24
Prof. D Mandal retired from the Department of Ancient
History and Archaeology, Allahabad University, who was appointed on
adhoc basis as Lecturer in 1972 but prior thereto he claimed to have
worked as exploration assistant since 1960. Initially he appeared as
an expert to depose that there is no archaeological evidence to show
either existence of any temple at the disputed site or that a temple
was demolished before construction of the disputed structure. The
statements made by him in cross examination shows the shallowness of
his knowledge in the subject:
Quote:
"I never visited Ayodhya" (E.T.C.)
"I do not have any specific knowledge of history of Babur's reign."
(E.T.C.)
"Whatsoever little knowledge I have about Babur is only that Babur
was the ruler of the 16th century. Except for this, I do not have
any knowledge of Babur. I do not have knowledge of anything in 2nd
para of editorial preface to my book (exhibit 63) in which Romila
Thapar has written that Vishwa Hindu Parishad, BJP and Rashtriya
Swayam Sevak Shangh for the first time raised the issue of the Babri
Masjid being located on the place which was earlier Rama's birth
place. I also do not know whether or not it is correctly written on
page 10 of the afore-said preface that Ayodhya is a site of
pilgrimage for adherents of Ramanand school." (E.T.C.)
"The Communist Party issues a red card, and I am its holder. It is
true that I have no faith in religion. A book written by me (exhibit
63) was not written in series; instead, it was published in series.
This series is called 'Tracks for the Times Series'. I do not know
whether there is any publication, under 'Tracks for the Times
Series', which is only for the criticism of religious organizations.
It is true that a book titled 'Khaki Shorts and Saffron Flags' has
been published under this series, but I have not read this book."
(E.T.C.)
"Hindi translation of faith is 'Aastha'. I have no knowledge of a
book 'The Question of Faith' under this very series, nor have I read
it. I know under which series the aforesaid book was published.
Faith has nothing to do with archaeological history. I do not
properly remember that 'Kashmir Towards Emergency' is published or
not. I remember names of two members comprising the editorial board
of this series, first of them being Prof. Romila Thapar and the other
being Sri Niladri Bhattacharya. I do not remember names of the rest
of members. It is true that Sarvapalli Gopal ji is also a member of
the editorial board of this series." (E.T.C.)
"I do not know whether Sri S. Gopal is of Communistic thought or not.
But Prof. Romila Thapar is influenced by Marxism." (E.T.C.)
"It is true that Prof.Romila Thapar has written editorial preface to
my book (exhibit 63). Prof. Romila Thapar was a professor at Jawahar
Lal Nehru University. In this very University was Shereen Ratnagar
also, who was a teacher." (E.T.C.)
"I know Prof. Suraj Bhan to be an archaeologist." (E.T.C.)
"It is true that I have not seen the disputed building as yet. I did
not make any physical investigation of stone used in inscriptions
carved out in the disputed building. Likewise, I also did not make
physical investigation of basalt stone."
"My finding in my book (exhibit 63) is not based only on any article.
My finding is based on materials written in this connection and given
in the book(paper no.118C-1/35) filed in Suit No.5/89, and chiefly
on the photograph (paper no.118C-1/36) depicting the excavation
undertaken by Prof.B.B.Lal near the Babri Mosque. . . . It is also
correct to say that I drew findings, taking the brief report of
B.B.Lal as given in paper no.118C-1/35 (Ram Janm Bhumi: Ayodhya) and
the reproduction of the photograph taken by him to be sacrosanct."
(E.T.C.)
"Many of my colleagues inspired me to write the book (exhibit 63)."
(E.T.C.)
"It is also true that I had requested one of them to write an
introduction to my book, and the colleague thus requested was Miss
Shereen Ratnagar." (E.T.C.)
"It is correct to say that Laxmi Kant Tiwari, who drew figures for me
in my book, went ahead with the drafting as I wished. Laxmi Kant
Tiwari was a skilled draftsman.I never even visited Ayodhya."
(E.T.C.)
"The main objective of my research was to see whether there was a
temple below the Babri Mosque or not." (E.T.C.)
"As per my research, initial signs of human population in Ayodhya are
found from the 6th-7th century BC." (E.T.C.)
"I know that there was Islamic population from the 13th century to
the 15th-16th century." (E.T.C.)
"On the basis of the source material which I used and studied in
course of my research, I speak of the disputed structure as Babri
Masjid. I did not make any research to see whether it was Babri
Mosque inasmuch as it was not a subject of my research. It is
correct to say that I took the disputed structure to be Babri Masjid
on the basis of that very source material." (E.T.C.)
"It is correct to say that I term the disputed structure as Babri
Mosque on that very source material on which others term it as such.
For this very reason I term it as Babri Mosque, otherwise its being
Babri Mosque is not a subject of my research." (E.T.C.)
"It is correct to say that I do not believe those persons who termed
the disputed sructure as Rama Janm Bhumi; for this very reason I have
not described it as such, and as a matter of fact it was not a
subject of my research." (E.T.C.)
"Since it was not the issue of my research to see whether these
stones can be a part of the Mosque, I did not 3653 make any research
on them, and for this very reason I did not make any research to see
whether they may be of the temple. . . . It is true that human
figures are engraved on the stones shown in paper nos. 118C-1/44&46."
(E.T.C.)
"The subject of my knowledge is archaeology and my speciality is in
field archaeology under it and in stratification method under field
archaeology." (E.T.C.)
"I know Prof. Surajbhan to be an archaeologist. He has also deposed
in this litigation. I have knowledge of it also." (E.T.C.)
"I know Dr. Suvira Jaiswal too. I have talks with her also. . . . . .
From her articles it appears that she is influenced by Marxism."
(E.T.C.)
"I know Prof. Romila Thapar too. She is also influenced by Marxism.
. . ..I know Sri R. S. Sharma, B. N. S. Yadav, D. P. Agarwal, S. C.
Bhattacharya, N. C. Ghosh and Niladri Bhattacharya and also have
talks with them." (E.T.C.)
"Our objective was to study or discover whether there was a temple
below the Babri Mosque or not. My objective did not have any
relation to the structure above the ground. Whatsoever materials had
been discovered by that time was, in my opinion, sufficient to
derive a conclusion as to whether there was any temple below the
structure or not." (E.T.C.)
"It is true that by observing materials discovered through excavation
I will not be in a position to tell whether there was a temple or a
mosque." (E.T.C.)
"It is true that I am of communistic thought."(E.T.C.)
"I have acquired knowledge of archaeology. I did not get any degree
or diploma in archaeology." (E.T.C.)
"As per my study and knowledge, the disputed structure was subsequent
to the 12th century AD."(Page 78)
"The map given in the supplement is, in my opinion, a primary source.
I did not enquire as to whether the map given in the supplement is
correct or not." (E.T.C.)
"Primary source of my book is paper no.118C1/36."(E.T.C.)
3629. A bare perusal of the above makes it clear that he virtually
made a critical analysis of the book that is Paper No.118C1/36, a
small booklet published by Prof. B.B.Lal and beyond that made no
further or other study/research etc.. Only on that basis, he wrote a
book, and analyzed the belief of the people whether the disputed
structure was constructed after demolishing a temple or that there
existed any temple of 11th or 12th century which was demolished
before its onstruction. The own admissions and clarification this
witness has given, we find that the entire opinion of this witness is
short of the requirement under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872
to qualify as an opinion of an Expert which may be considered
relevant on a fact in issue, by this Court. (E.T.C.)3650
Comment:
So here we have an ardchelogist who did not get any formal grounding
in Archaeology , no degree or diploma, never visited the site and
drew conclusions based on his book written on the basis of a paper of
Dr B B Lal and doesn't remember what was written as preface by
Romilla Thapar in his book. No wonder he can not tell from the
materials recovered during excavation whether they belonged to temple
or mosque. How much reliance should be placed on his expert
deposition.
}