Delhi court issues notice in women wrestlers’ appeal against Brij Bhushan’s acquittal

A Delhi court on Monday issued notice to the Delhi Police and former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, in a plea moved by four wrestlers challenging the acquittal of Singh in a sexual harassment case last month.

The notices were issued by special judge Dig Vinay Singh of Rouse Avenue Courts. The court has fixed October 9 as the next date of hearing, when the Delhi Police, through SHO of Connaught Place Police Station, Singh and his aide and co-accused Vinod Tomar, will respond to the petition.

The criminal revision petition, filed through senior advocate Rebecca John, calls the trial court’s August 3 judgment “archaic” and based on “stereotypical assumptions”.

The plea said the acquittal was “unsustainable in law” and based on “conjectures and surmises” rather than a proper appreciation of evidence.

Also Read: Women wrestlers move Delhi court, challenge Brij Bhushan’s acquittal in harassment case

The petition alleged that the trial court had relied on “archaic and stereotypical assumptions about the expected behaviour of victims of sexual assault and harassment, rather than on a fair, evidence-based assessment.”

It also argued that the court failed to understand why women facing workplace sexual harassment may choose to remain silent to protect their employment.

On August 3, the magisterial court acquitted Singh and former WFI assistant secretary Vinod Tomar, citing lack of evidence. The court said the allegations appeared “false” and “fabricated”, and part of a “deep conspiracy which seems to be politically motivated.”

Also Read:Delhi HC asks WFI’s stand on Vinesh Phogat’s participation in World Championship trials

In a detailed judgment, additional chief judicial magistrate Ashwini Panwar had observed: “I have no hitch in saying that the version given by the victims...discredits the prosecution case completely and also shows that the entire allegations are false and fabricated, made against the accused persons in a deep conspiracy which seems to be politically motivated.”

The court pointed out to the contradiction in witnesses’ statements and “inconsistencies” in documentary evidence and the “absence of contemporaneous complaints.”