Back
Delhi Court Acquits Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, Cites Prolonged Silence and Contradictions
In a significant ruling that has sent ripples through the legal and sporting communities, a Delhi court has acquitted Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, the former president of the and a senior BJP leader, of all charges in a case involving allegations of and made by several women wrestlers. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Ashwini Panwar of delivered the verdict on , citing the complainants' prolonged silence, their continued cordial relations with the accused, and material contradictions in their testimonies as circumstances that created about the prosecution's case.
The court also acquitted former WFI Secretary Vinod Tomar, who had been charged with under . The prosecution had filed charges under against Singh, along with an additional charge of under against Tomar.
The Allegations and the Trial
The allegations against Singh dated back to the period between and , spanning events at the WFI office in New Delhi, Singh's official residence, and various international venues. The complainants, five women wrestlers who were among India's most decorated athletes, alleged that Singh had made unwanted physical advances and sexually harassed them during training camps and tournaments. The case gained national prominence in when the wrestlers staged a prolonged protest at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, demanding Singh's arrest. A separate case was also registered against Singh following allegations by a minor wrestler, but a cancellation report was subsequently filed in that matter.
During the trial, the prosecution examined the five complainants, along with supporting witnesses, and presented documentary evidence including photographs, tournament schedules, and communication records. However, the defence argued that the allegations were motivated by a conspiracy to tarnish Singh's reputation, highlighting the absence of any contemporaneous complaints and the complainants' continued interaction with Singh long after the alleged incidents.
Prolonged Silence and Cordial Relations: A Key Credibility Factor
The court's judgment placed significant weight on the fact that the complainants had remained silent for years and had maintained amicable relationships with Singh even after the alleged incidents. ACJM Panwar observed that the record contained numerous photographs showing Singh being invited to family functions and wedding ceremonies of the complainants. The court noted that while it was understandable that the complainants might have feared career repercussions as Singh was the all-powerful head of the WFI,
"it was not at all understandable as to why cordial relations were maintained by them with him for years."
The judge remarked that the complainants' post-incident conduct, including social media posts and media interviews that made only generic allegations without naming Singh, undermined the prosecution's narrative. The court emphasised that no formal complaint or retaliation had been made by any of the complainants until the protests of 2023, despite multiple opportunities to approach higher authorities, including the .
Contradictions and Improvements: Fatal to the Prosecution
The judgment meticulously dissected the testimonies of the complainants, pointing out multiple discrepancies that the court found fatal to the prosecution's case. For instance, one complainant alleged that she was sexually harassed in Mongolia in
, but her complaint before the Oversight Committee placed the incident in Turkey in
. When confronted, she claimed that her participation in many tournaments made it difficult to recall exact details. The court deemed this "abnormal conduct" and held that the shift in her initial version regarding the place and year was
"fatal to the prosecution story."
Another complainant's allegation regarding an incident during a wrestling league at the Siri Fort Auditorium in was dismissed as "unbelievable" because it was alleged to have occurred in public view without any independent witness. Additionally, the court noted that the delay of more than five years in making the complaint was material.
The court also examined allegations related to events at the Asian Championship in Bishkek, where a complainant claimed she was molested during warm-ups on a date that, according to tournament schedules, did not correspond to her category's bouts. The court treated this discrepancy as significant, especially because the complainant stated that the incident caused her to lose her bout.
Even allegations involving celebratory moments—such as Singh hugging a wrestler after a victory at the Asian Games in Jakarta in —were addressed. The court examined photographs from those events and concluded that the interactions appeared natural and celebratory, with no visible discomfort on the part of the complainants. The court held that such conduct, in the context of a tournament, could not be construed as criminal.
Rehearsed and Planned Allegations
A recurring theme in the judgment was the court's observation that the complainants' versions seemed
"rehearsed and well practised as well as planned."
The court noted that before the dharna (sit-in protest) in
, there had been no complaint of
by any of the wrestlers, and no name of any female wrestler who allegedly faced harassment was mentioned. The allegations were only introduced in "tailor made formal complaints" given to the police in
.
The court also highlighted that two of the five complainants during the trial, stating that they had been forced or pressured to give their statements at the instance of the other two wrestlers. This further eroded the credibility of the prosecution's case.
Legal Analysis: The
The judgment underscores the fundamental principle of criminal law that the prosecution must prove its case . The court's reasoning reflects the necessity of relying on credible and consistent evidence, especially in cases of where the allegations may be years old. While the court acknowledged the seriousness of such allegations and the power dynamics involved, it held that the evidence on record failed to establish the charges beyond a .
Legal experts observe that this case highlights the challenges of prosecuting historical sexual misconduct claims, particularly when the alleged victims have maintained relationships with the accused and have provided shifting accounts of the incidents. The court's emphasis on and the absence of immediate complaints may set a precedent for similar cases, though it also raises questions about the balance between protecting complainants and ensuring a fair trial.
Impact on Legal Practice and the Justice System
This is likely to have far-reaching implications for how courts assess credibility in cases, especially those involving high-profile individuals and institutional power imbalances. The decision underscores the importance of and the need for complainants to provide consistent and timely accounts of alleged incidents. For defence lawyers, the judgment offers a template for challenging delayed complaints and highlighting inconsistencies in testimony.
On the other hand, women's rights advocates may view the verdict as a setback, arguing that it could discourage genuine victims from coming forward because of the stringent evidentiary standards applied to their accounts. The case also raises broader questions about the accountability of sports administrators and the effectiveness of the justice system in addressing allegations of sexual misconduct in sporting bodies.
Conclusion
The of Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and Vinod Tomar in the wrestlers' case marks the culmination of a contentious legal battle that captured national attention. While the court meticulously applied the , its reliance on the complainants' prolonged silence, cordial relations, and testimonial contradictions has left the legal community divided. The judgment serves as a reminder that, in criminal cases, the remains on the prosecution, and —however culled from circumstantial evidence and human conduct—must lead to an . As the dust settles, the case will likely be cited in subsequent trials involving allegations of , shaping the discourse on the delicate interplay between victim testimony and the .
