New Delhi [India], April 26 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue Court on Friday dismissed an application moved by BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, seeking further investigation and placing of a call record details of a coach and fixed May 7, 2024, for pronouncement of order on ‘framing of charge’ in the matter related to Sexual Harassment levelled by six women wrestlers against Brij Bhushan Singh.
The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Priyanka Rajpoot dismissed the plea moved by Brij Bhushan and sought a direction to place on record the CDR of coach Vijender in relation to an alleged incident at the WFI office in New Delhi.
Singh claimed that he was not in Delhi on the said date. He was in Serbia on September 7, 2022.
Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Srivastav earlier submitted that if something has not been argued by defence counsel, is it the fault of the prosecution. APP submitted that on analysis of CDR, it was found that the location of the coach was in the same area where the WFI office is situated.
Advocate Rajiv Mohan appeared for Brij Bhushan and argued that the victim went to Bulgaria in August 2022. Thereafter, she went to WFI in September 2022.
On September 7, 2022, the location of the coach was WFI office. On that, I was not in India. Counsel for the accused submitted that as per Delhi police the CDR was corroborating the incident. However, the CDR is not filed. If it is filed, the travel documents become important.
The counsel of the complainant submitted that it is a delaying tactic. If the CDR is such important, that could be asked for earlier.
He further submitted that the victim fairly said that she didn’t remember the exact date. But the incident happened at the WFI office. We can file a reply.
The Delhi Police chargesheet filed against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and Vinod Tomar stated that both the accused are chargesheeted for trial ‘without arrest’ as they have complied with the directions u/s 41A CrPC by joining the investigation.
The chargesheet was filed against the accused Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and Vinod Tomar for the commission of offence u/s 354/354A/354D IPC (Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh).
Accused Vinod Tomar aided/facilitated the commission of the crime. Accordingly, he is being forwarded for trial u/s 354/354A/109/506 IPC.
The chargesheet further stated that based on the investigation so far, Brij Bhushan Singh was “liable to be prosecuted and punished for offences” of sexual harassment, molestation and stalking.
A 1599-page chargesheet in the case, having statements of 44 witnesses and six statements was recorded under CrPC 164.
Delhi Police in the chargesheet also submitted several pictures including the picture clicked during the events.
Delhi Police chargesheet stated that based on the “investigation so far,” of the complaints by six top wrestlers, Singh was “liable to be prosecuted and punished for offences” of sexual harassment, molestation and stalking.
The chargesheet stated that witnesses in the matter have mentioned that they also saw the physically wrong gesture of the then WFI president.
Delhi police had filed a chargesheet against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and Vinod Tomar on June 15, last year.
This case was lodged on a complaint lodged by women wrestlers.
In the wrestlers’ matter, two FIRs were registered against Brij Bhushan Singh on the basis of the wrestlers’ complaints.
One was registered under the POCSO Act and a cancellation report has been filed in the case of a minor wrestler. The second FIR was filed on the complaint of several wrestlers.
In both matters, Delhi Police officials had said that in the FIR registered by the wrestlers, after completion of investigation, we are filing a chargesheet for the offences under sections 354, 354A, 354D IPC against accused Brijbhushan Sharan Singh and for offences under sections109/ 354/354A/506 IPC against accused Vinod Tomar before the Rouse Avenue Court, said Suman Nalwa, PRO, Delhi Police. (ANI)
, https://www.aninews.in/news/national/general-news/brij-bhushan-singh-case-delhi-court-fixes-may-7-for-passing-of-order-on-framing-of-charges-dismisses-further-probe-plea20240426180744
