Former WFI chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh on Wednesday refuted the allegations of sexual harassment before a Delhi court and questioned the delay of five years by the women wrestlers in levelling the accusations against him. Singh said if a coach in the excitement of a win hugs a player without any sexual intent, it cannot be made into a sexual harassment offence.
Advocate Rajiv Mohan, appearing for Singh, argued that offence under section 354A (sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can only be made out if there is sexual intent.
Referring to the allegation of a female wrestler, made out in the chargesheet that Singh had hugged her at Delhi’s Siri Fort Stadium in 2018, he said hugging or touching a woman without sexual intent cannot constitute an offence under IPC.
Mohan, assisted by advocates Rehan Khan and Rishabh Bhati, also pointed out that there was an inordinate delay in filing the complaints.
“When you are moving freely and that too for 5 years and you did not come forward, then today saying that you were under pressure and worried about your career is not a valid explanation”, Mohan argued.
The Delhi Police filed a 1,599-page chargesheet on June 15 against Singh and wrestling official Vinod Tomar detailing the various allegations made by six female wrestlers. The court took cognizance of it on July 7 and issued summons to both.
Singh is facing charges under sections 354 (assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty), 354A and 354D (stalking), while the police had framed charges against Tomar under sections 354, 354A, 109 (abetment) and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC.
Mohan, while arguing before additional chief metropolitan magistrate Harjeet Singh Jaspal, also raised the issue of jurisdiction, whether a Delhi court has the power to try all the offences alleged in the chargesheet.
Pointing out that the alleged offences which had taken place outside India, in Mongolia 2016, Indonesia 2018 and Kazakhstan 2019, Mohan argued that for a Delhi court to try the offence a sanction from the central government is required under section 188 CrPC, which has not been obtained.
Mohan had also argued that a Delhi court can only conduct trial for offences which took place within its territorial jurisdiction.
“The place of enquiry and trial are specified under the CrPC. Within India the jurisdiction lies at the place of instance where the crime was committed, unless it is a case of continuing offence, and offences like outraging the modesty of a woman is not a continuing offence as the instance force is used to outrage the modesty the offence is committed,” he added.
Mohan submitted that these are the main points within the contours of which he would argue further once the prosecution present their case. The court has listed the matter for further hearing on Thursday.
Singh is currently facing another FIR, filed on the same day in April by a minor, who later changed her statement before a magistrate court. On June 15, the police filed a 552-page cancellation report in the second FIR which is pending before a POCSO court.