The victims had initially hesitated to level allegations against the accused, fearing it could jeopardise their careers. When they eventually came forward, they gave “wrong” details about the country and year in which the alleged incident took place.

This contradiction was among the reasons the court cited in its order acquitting former BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, who had been accused of sexual harassment by six women wrestlers. The court described the contradiction as “fatal to the prosecution case.”

What the Order Said About the Shifting Testimony

“All the victims have deposed that they did not make allegations against the accused persons timely as they feared loss of their career… When they took up the courage to do so, they ended up mentioning the wrong country and the wrong year as the alleged place and year of the incident in question… The shift in the first/initial version of the witness with respect to the place/country and the year where the incident allegedly occurred is fatal to the prosecution story,” the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Ashwani Panwar noted in its August 3 order.

The women had levelled the allegations against Singh in 2023, when he was president of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI). Vinod Tomar, Assistant Secretary of the WFI, was also acquitted in the case.

‘False and Fabricated,’ Court Says

In the order, ACJM Panwar went further, describing the allegations as “false and fabricated” and appearing to be “motivated politically.”

“… I have no hitch in saying that the version given by the victims ‘P’ and ‘I P’ discredit the prosecution case completely and also show that the entire allegations are false and fabricated made collectively at the instance of ‘V P’, ‘B P’, and the coaches of Mahadev academy, against the accused persons in deep conspiracy which seems to be motivated politically,” the court said.

The order noted that two of the women, referred to as ‘P’ and ‘I P’, had been projected as victims from the start of the case. “Both ‘P’ and ‘I P’ were projected as victims right from the inception. However, they appeared before the court and were eventually counselled. They categorically admitted that no sexual harassment acts were committed against them…,” ACJM Panwar added.

‘Cordial Relations’ After the Alleged Incidents

The court flagged something else it found significant: some of the victims continued to maintain a warm relationship with Singh well after the alleged incidents.

“It is also relevant to mention that the victims remained silent for many years after the alleged incidents. Besides that, they also kept cordial relations with A1 [Accused 1]. Many photographs on record verify the same. He was invited to family functions and wedding ceremonies by the victims,” the judge said.

The court acknowledged one side of the explanation while questioning the other. “It is understandable as alleged that A1 being the then WFI President could have spoiled their careers if they had made a complaint against him. However, it is not at all understandable as to why cordial relations were [maintained] with him for years,” the judge wrote.

He went further: “Since nobody made any formal complaint or retaliated to the alleged acts of A1, it is highly improbable that the alleged acts are true. The victims even met the higher authorities but failed to disclose the alleged acts to them.”

Complaints Called ‘Tailor-Made’

The court also pointed to what it called inconsistencies and later improvements in the complainants’ statements, describing the formal complaints as following a similar pattern. “… Female wrestlers who were selected came forward, and same/similar allegations, [which] were incorporated in the tailor-made formal complaints drafted in fancy manner, with similar excessive decoration… and… were filed on 21.04.2023 before the police,” the court observed.

Of the original six complainants, two later turned hostile during the trial. Charges were never framed in relation to allegations from a third complainant, a point the court noted in its judgment.

“To say this, I draw strength from the fact that out of five victims on whose allegations charges were framed against the accused persons, two have not supported the case of the prosecution… they stated that they were forced/pressured to give their statement at the instance of PW 5 and PW 10 [husband of one of the wrestlers],” the court said.

Gaps in Corroboration

On one specific incident, the court noted that although it was “stated to have taken place at a public place, in the presence of several persons,” the witness furnished no specific date, and no independent person present at the venue was identified as an eyewitness.

ACJM Panwar also flagged the conduct of the husband of one of the wrestlers as “inconsistent with the prosecution’s case of continuing hostility” stemming from one of the alleged incidents. The court noted that the complainant and her husband “maintained cordial relations with the accused.” After the alleged incident, the couple visited Singh at his residence to seek his blessings for their marriage.

How the Case Unfolded

The trial concluded roughly three years after the chargesheet was filed. In total, 32 prosecution witnesses were examined during the proceedings. Notably, two of the complainants had alleged that Singh touched them inappropriately and sexually, under the pretext of checking their breathing patterns.

Timeline of the case:

  • April 28, 2023: An FIR was registered at Connaught Place police station against Singh and Tomar. A separate FIR was registered at the same station for POCSO offences, based on a complaint from a minor victim.
  • June 15, 2023: Police filed a 1,500-page chargesheet against Singh, alleging sexual harassment, assault and stalking of six women wrestlers. In support, the chargesheet cited statements from at least 22 witnesses across four states, including wrestlers, a referee, a coach and a physiotherapist. On the same day, police filed a report seeking cancellation of the POCSO case against Singh. This was after the minor and her father withdrew their allegations.
  • May 2024: A Delhi court framed charges against Singh for assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, and for sexual harassment.

As of today, both the POCSO case and the sexual harassment case against Singh stand closed. It is learnt that counsel for the complainants are likely to move higher courts to appeal the acquittal.

The defence was led by advocates Rajiv Mohan, Rishabh Bhati, Rehan Khan and Suryansh Singh. Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat represented the state. Meanwhile, senior advocate Rebecca John, assisted by advocates Bhavook Chauhan, Harsh Bora and Anushka Baruah, appeared for four of the complainants.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR