Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh case: Oversight committee did not recommend FIR within 7 days, argues Singh’s counsel

New Delhi [India]: During the arguments on charges against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case, his counsel on Saturday submitted that the oversight committee (OC) did not recommend an FIR within seven days of the report.

It amounts to exoneration.

He also submitted that the oversight committee was working in the capacity of the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act. It has not found any prima facie case against the accused, Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), after hearing part of the arguments, listed the matter for further arguments on October 30.

In continuation of the submission from the last date, advocate Rajiv Mohan, counsel for the accused, reiterated that the oversight committee is akin to the ICC under PoSH.

He also drew the attention of the court to Section 11 of the POSH Act and argued that the said section mandates that if a prima facie case is found against the respondent, the ICC within seven days shall recommend registration of the FIR against the aforesaid respondent.

However, since in this matter no such recommendation has been made, it is safe to assume that the oversight committee, working in the capacity of the ICC under POSH, did not find a prima facie case against accused Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh.

Defence counsel further submitted that, despite enjoying a status akin to that of the ICC, the report of the oversight committee is not being used as a letter of exoneration for the accused. He also argued that the report of the oversight committee is silent on the allegations.

” To put it in simple words, non-recommendations of FIR is equivalent to the fact that no case was found out,” Rajiv Mohan argued.

The counsel also submitted that, as per the mandate of Section 11, the case was not recommended to be registered by the ICC, the factum of exoneration in the inquiry can be taken note of by this fact only.

Defence counsel further submitted that since no prima facie case was found out by the OC and since no case was found out and no FIR was registered, it is automatically exonerated.

On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) submitted that the constitution of the committee is not in accordance with Section 4 of the POSH Act, and therefore it cannot be said that it is ICC. Secondly, there is no question of exoneration, as no finding was given by the committee.

He referred to the Supreme Court judgement in the Punjab and Singh Bank vs Durgesh Kuwar case.

Defence counsel further argued that the statements made before the OC and statements recorded in 164 CrPC have material contradiction and statements made later have material improvement and are liable to be rejected in toto.

It was also argued by the defence counsel that since there are material contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, that itself calls for the discharge of the accused, as the contradictions have the consequence of taking the case away from the arena of grave suspicion towards only mere suspicion.

Advocate Rajiv Mohan also submitted that WFI is linked with the Sports Ministry and SAI.

The Oversight Committee is akin to the ICC, as it was constituted on the order of the Ministry.

It recorded the statement of the complainant, and there is no observation made by the committee on sexual harassment, the defence counsel argued.

He further argued that if there is no exoneration, there is no implication either. There was no complaint lodged with the police within seven days after the report of the committee.

APP Atul Shrivastava countered by submitting that only two recommendations can be made either allegations proved or malicious allegations.

There was no recommendation, and they also did not say that these were malicious complaints, APP argued.

Defence counsel argued that the statements made before the oversight committee and later made have material contradictions and are liable to be rejected in toto.

Contradictions have values at the stage of charge as it creates suspicion, Rajiv Mohan submitted.

He argued that, as per the prosecution’s document itself shows that the accused was not in Delhi on October 16 and 17 2017. He was in Lucknow and Sonipat on these two dates.

He also argued that the incident of October 17, 2017 was not stated before the oversight committee.