Wrestlers’ sexual harassment case: Accused never exonerated by oversight committee, argue Delhi Police

New Delhi [India]: The Delhi Police on Saturday argued that accused BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh was never exonerated by the oversight committee.

Delhi Police said this during arguments on the charge in the women wrestlers’ sexual harassment case against Singh.
Delhi Police also argued that a mere gesture is enough to constitute an offence under section 354 IPC.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Harjeet Singh Jaspal after hearing the part arguments of Delhi police adjourned the matter till September 23.

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 cannot be prosecuted.

“Was the oversight committee a committee under the Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment Act, 2013 (POSH),” the court asked? The SPP replied in the 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’ or has 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 had 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.