New Delhi: The Rouse Avenue court in Delhi on Friday heard part of arguments on the framing of charges by BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case. He is accused of sexually harassing women wrestlers during his tenure as WFI Chief. It was argued that there was a delay in reporting the alleged offences. It is also contended that contradictions in the affidavit and statement of complaint.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Priyanka Rajpoot after hearing the part arguments listed the matter for hearing on February 6 and 7 at 2 pm.
Advocate Rajiv Mohan along with Rishabh Bhati and Rehan Khan appeared for Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.
Counsel Rajiv Mohan argued that there was a long delay in reporting the alleged offences. The incidents of 2012 and thereafter reported to eh police in 2023.
The statement given before the Oversight Committee can't be brushed aside, advocate Rajiv Mohan argued.
Counsel for the accused also argued that the alleged incident took place at different times and places. There is no link between the incidents.
It was argued that women wrestlers started their Protest on 18 January 2023 in New Delhi.
On 23 January, an Oversight committee was formed by the government. It filed its report on April 5. On April 21, 2023, six complaints were filed in Police Station Connaught Place. On April 28 FIR was lodged.
There is no intense link in the complaints. Time and place are different but allegations are against one person, the counsel argued. There is no connection among the complainants, he added.
It was also contended that the requirement for invoking section 354 IPC is criminal force and assault. This section was added as it is punishable with 5 years and it is not time barred.
On the point of jurisdiction, the accused's counsel submitted that the Offences committed in Delhi can be tried by this court. Not the offences happened outside Delhi and India.
On the point of delay, he contended that the reason for the delay was stated by one of the complainants that her career was at stake, therefore she kept silent.She was awarded Arjun Award in 2016. Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratan in 2021.
Advocate Rajiv Mohan argued that before the Oversight committee, no incident in 2016 was mentioned. The incident mentioned in the complaint is from 2015 in Turkey. Incidents in Mangolia in 2016 was reported in 2023 in Delhi.
Affidavits and statements before the Oversight committee are part of the judicial record. Statement given before it can't be brushed aside.
It was also argued that Coach Kuldeep had recommended action against the complainant in relation to indiscipline. The accused had taken action against her. It is a relied-upon document of prosecution.
Every male sportsperson in authority is prone to sexual harassment allegations, the counsel argued.
He also argued that the information was concealed by the complainant. You concealed that you were not allowed to play in the 48 kg category as your weight was found more than it.
"You alleged sexual harassment as I (accused) took disciplinary action against you," counsel argued.
He also pointed out towards the lacunae in a statement related to the incident of Mangolia as the hotel name is not mentioned. In Turkmenistan you did not participate in a qualifying tournament.
There's a reason behind the allegations and the protests. Can we simply start the trial on the basis of whatever documents the prosecution submits, the counsel argued?
On the point of Continuity, he argued that Mongolia incident is of 2016, WFI offence is separate from Mongolia incident. Without sanctions under 188, this case can't continue. You have to show the connecting link between the offences.
There is a time limitation and chargesheet should have been filed within three years of the offence, counsel Rajiv Mohan submitted.
There must not be a large time gap to concoct a false story, he said
The committee was constituted under the government order. Statement recorded there can not be brushed aside, counsel argued.
Delhi police had filed a charge sheet against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and Vinod Tomar.
The court had taken cognizance of the charge sheet. The court is hearing arguments on framing of charges afresh.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)