Wrestlers' sexual harassment case: “Court not required to see case in detail during framing of charges,” Delhi Police

New Delhi [India], August 11 : Delhi police on Friday said that a prime facie case is made out against accused Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and Vinod Tomar in a sexual harassment case.
This case was lodged on the complaint of women wrestlers.
Special public prosecutor (SPP) for Delhi police Atul Srivastava submitted, "We have more than the prima facie case."
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) has listed the matter for hearing on behalf of the complainants on August 19.
SPP submitted before the court that accused persons must be charged for the offences for which they have been charge-sheeted. The prima facie case is made out against the accused persons.
Opposing the arguments of defence counsel, SPP argued that intention is to be made out of the conduct of the accused person.
He also opposed the argument that the court can't proceed with the offence committed outside India.
The offence committed outside India can be tried by this court when it is uncertain where the offence is committed. Partly committed at one place and partly at some other place, where the cause of action arises, the court can proceed with the trial.
SPP argued that one place of commission of the offence is Delhi. This court has jurisdiction to try this case.
He also opposed the arguments that a person who has been exonerated in inquiry also can be prosecuted.
SPP argued that he (the accused) was never exonerated by the oversight committee comprising boxer Mary Kom. 
"Rather, they have recommended that something should be done. They have recommended how can such type of incidents be addressed," SPP Srivastava said.
He also opposed the argument that offence under section 354 IPC is not made out and an offence under section 354A IPC is made out but time-barred.
The special public prosecutor argued that the period of limitations will be decided on the basis of maximum and severe punishment.
The Cognizance has also taken in 354 IPC, the SPP argued. This section carries a punishment of five years.
He submitted that limitations will be applicable only where the maximum punishment is three years. Where punishment is more than three years the provision of limitations is not applicable.
The defence had said that hugging is not molestation. It was argued by the defence counsel that hugging is not an offence under section 354, SPP opposed saying that it is not a mere case of hugging, the intention is there.
With what intention I have given the hug is important. The onus falls on you (accused) which has to be proven later and not at a stage where prima facie view is to be taken. We can not decide this issue at this stage, the SPP argued.
He also referred to the charge sheet and statement of one of the complainants in which she stated the incident took place in Mongolia. She had stated that he (the accused) called her to his dinner table.
"To my utter shock, he put his hand on my breast. Then he slid his hand to my stomach. He groped me, " the victim had stated.
Is that not molestation? asked the SPP.
"Intention is made out on the basis of the conduct of the accused," the SPP submitted. An offence under section 354 IPC is made out sir, he added.
On the point of discharge, he argued that Law has been laid down when the accused can request the court to discharge him. Only if the material is absolutely insufficient to frame charges, the accused can request for discharge.
He also argued that the power of the court is limited at the stage of framing of charges. 'Prima facie' is a Latin word that means to look, the SPP submitted
On the point of abetment, SPP Srivastava submitted that in order to book a person under section 109 IPC, we have to look at the provision.
It is not necessary to do anything. If Illegal omission is there it is also tantamount to abetment, he submitted.
He also referred to the statement wherein the complainant had stated that on 15/10/17 she came from Bellary to Delhi. When I reached the WFI office, another accused Vinod Tomar met me there. He asked my husband to go out. He asked me to go to meet the accused alone.
"He facilitated the things commission of the crime," the SPP submitted.
The prosecutor says at the framing of the charge the court has to see whether the prima case is made out or not, he added.
What the court has to see while framing charges is the prima facie case. Detailed reasons are not required to frame charges, the SPP submitted.
Allegations in the chargesheet are sufficient. Only a prima facie case has to be seen. Beyond doubt will only be seen during the trial stage, he added.
The judge is not required to give a detailed reason to frame the charges, the SPP submitted.