Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh case: Former WFI chief and Delhi Police conclude arguments on framing of charges in sexual harassment case

New Delhi [India], February 27 : The Rouse Avenue court, after hearing arguments on framing of charges in a sexual harassment case against BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh listed the matter for clarification.
This case was lodged on the complaints filed by six women wrestlers against Singh.
In its concluding arguments, Delhi police submitted that there was commonality and continuity in the offences.
They could register six FIRs but it will cause delay in the trial, Delhi Police said.
On the other hand, counsel for Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh submitted that there was no commonality and continuity of the offences. Therefore, no single FIR can be lodged in six FIRs.
Additional Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Priyanka Rajpoot listed the matter for clarification, if any, on March 15 at 2 PM.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastava appeared for Delhi police and submitted that the alleged offences committed by the accused were in continuity and there was commonality in the same.
He also submitted that there is sufficient material to frame charges against the accused persons.
The court has to see whether there is prima facie evidence to frame charges or not at this stage. Court need not to go deep into the evidence at the stage of framing of charges, APP submitted.
Advocate Rajiv Mohan along with Rishabh Bhati and Rehan Khan appeared for Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.
Advocate Rajiv Mohan had submitted that the oversight committee (OC) was formed by the government under the provision of PoSH Act.
It had recorded the statement in connection with allegations levelled by the complainants, defence counsel submitted. Statement recorded before OC are previous statement, he added.
He also argued that there were contradictions in the statement of a complainant in relation to time and place of incidents.
Earlier, it was argued that there was a delay in reporting of the alleged offences. It is also contended that contradictions in the affidavit and statement of complaint.
Counsel Rajiv Mohan had also argued that there was long delay in reporting the alleged offences. Incident of 2012 and thereafter reported to the police in 2023.
The statement given before Oversight committee can't be brushed aside, he argued.
Counsel for accused also argued that the alleged incident took place at different time 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 Over sight committee was formed by the government. It filed its Report in April 5. On April 21, 2023, six complaints were filed in Police station Connaught place. On 28 April FIR was lodged.
There is no interse 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 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, 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 delay was stated by one of the Complaint 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 Oversight committee, no incident of 2016 was mentioned. Incident mentioned in the Complaint is of 2015 of Turkey. Incidents Mangolia 2016 was reported in 2023 in Delhi.
Affidavit and statement before Oversight committee is part of 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. Accused had taken action against her. It is relied upon document of prosecution.
He also argued that the information was concealed by the complainant. You concealed that you were not allowed to play in 48 kg category as your weight was found more than it.
"You alleged sexual harrasment as I (accused) took disciplinary action against you," counsel argued.
He also pointed out towards the lacunae in statement related to the incident of Mangolia as hotel name is not mentioned. In Turkmenistan you did not participate in 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 206, 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. If you take a long time before complaining, he said
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 arguemnts on framing of charges afresh.