New Delhi [India]: Delhi Police on Saturday argued that BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh knew what he was doing and therefore he tried to cover up his action with a complaint which shows his intention.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Harjeet Singh Jaspal heard the arguments of Delhi Police in the wrestler sexual harassment case.
Special public prosecutor (SPP) Atul Srivastava argued that there was an intention on the part of the accused and there are incidents connected to one another. Therefore, the complaints were clubbed into one FIR.
“There are connected incidents and complaints which were clubbed”, Delhi police argued.
The prosecutor also cited the Supreme Court judgement in the Tulsi Prajapati encounter case in which two FIRs were clubbed.
The SPP also submitted that the court has jurisdiction to try the matter as some of the incidents took place in Delhi.
He also submitted that the complaints are not time-barred as there are complaints of section 354 IPC.
Delhi Police also argued that the sanction under section 188 CrPC is not required as some of the incidents happened within India.
In support of his arguments, the SPP referred to the incidents that took place in Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Bellary and New Delhi to show the intention of the accused.
He also argued that the actions of the accused were facilitated by the co-accused. He stopped the brother and husband of two complaints outside the room of the accused in the WFI office in New Delhi.
The court will continue to hear further submissions of Delhi police on the point of the charge against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in the Sexual Harassment case on October 7.
Earlier, Delhi police on September 16, argued that accused BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh was never exonerated by the oversight committee. It was argued during arguments on the charge in the women’s wrestler’s sexual harassment case against Singh.
It was also argued by the Delhi police that mere a gesture is enough to constitute an offence under section 354 IPC.
Special public prosecutor (SPP) Atul Srivastava for Delhi police argued that the accused was never exonerated of the allegations by the oversight committee. The committee never said that the allegations were false or unsubstantiated.
SPP also argued that the committee gave recommendations only for future purposes. It was not an adjudication.
The adjudication and Prosecution Proceedings are different in nature. It is not like that even if an accused is exonerated, he can not be prosecuted.
“Was the oversight committee a committee under the POSH Act, the court asked? The SPP replied in negative.
He also read the oversight committee in the court and said that the tasks given to the committee were different and were not mirror images. The issue itself was different
They have made some recommendations, these are not outcomes, these are recommendations for future purposes, the SPP submitted.
“Nowhere have they stated that these allegations are not substantiated or are false,” the SPP said.
Delhi police also argued on the point of offence under section 354 IPC. The SPP said that if there is a reaction on the other side of my action, then there is a use of force.
“It is for me to have the knowledge that whatever I do may outrage the modesty. The accused must follow self-restraint,” the SPP submitted.
“Mere gesture is also enough to constitute an offence under section 354 IPC, he added.
The SPP submitted that if he has put up questions like Do you have a boyfriend, have also asked to have sexual relations, this constitutes 354A read with 354 IPC.
On the last date of the hearing on September 1, Senior advocate Rebecca John argued that the oversight committee was an eyewash to assuage the sentiments.
“Its report needs to be junked as there was no clear finding, and it was not constituted according to the rule of the POSH Act”, the senior counsel had argued.
She further argued that the court has territorial jurisdiction to try this case as some of the offences are committed in Delhi, the counsel argued.
The counsel also argued that there is no need to take sanction under sanction 188 for prosecution as some of the offences committed are within India.
The charges need to be framed against the accused persons as there were multiple acts by the accused, there was a pattern and there is one individual who committed the offence.
However, the counsel for complainants had submitted that the incident mentioned by one of the complainants is from 2012 and prior to the amendment to the offence of sexual harassment.
But she is still a relevant witness in this case. She may be treated as a witness now, the Senior counsel argued.
