‘Rehearsed, well-practised, planted’: Court on allegations against Brij Bhushan | Delhi News
NEW DELHI: A court, which last week acquitted former BJP MP and former Wrestling Federation of India president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh for lack of evidence, held that the sexual harassment allegations against him were “rehearsed and well-practised as well as planted” and appeared to be part of a “deep conspiracy, which seems to be politically motivated”.Additional chief judicial magistrate Ashwani Panwar observed in the 239-page order, “The allegations appear to be imperfect to be true, seem rehearsed and well-practised as well as planted, more so when the complaints have been filed after a long period of time.”The court on Aug 3 acquitted Singh of “all charges” under IPC sections 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman to outrage her modesty), 354A (sexual harassment) and 506 (I) (criminal intimidation), and former WFI assistant secretary Vinod Tomar of charges under IPC 506 (I).The court cited material contradictions in the successive versions of the survivors, documentary evidence inconsistent with the alleged dates and circumstances, and mentioned evidence of tutoring.Among the discrepancies was an alleged incident during an Olympic qualifier in Mongolia. The incident was initially stated to have taken place in Turkiye in 2015, and subsequently in Mongolia in 2016, the court pointed out, holding it to be “not a mere variation in peripheral details”.It also noted that major allegations involving Asian Games in Jakarta and Tokyo Olympics were absent from earlier affidavits before the oversight committee. A prosecution witness also changed the date of an alleged WFI office incident from Sunday, when the office was closed, to Monday, which the court termed a “material improvement”. A witness’ claim of an incident during a warm-up on Feb 28, 2018, also contradicted the official event schedules.“No doubt, it is really very difficult for everyone, including the victim, to remember the name and details of every place where the tournaments were held. However, it’s not difficult but rather abnormal conduct to not to remember the place where incident of sexual harassment had occurred, that too, in full public view, in a restaurant, where many sportsperson, coaches, including the relatives of the victim, were present and the incident was repeated three-four times at the said place,” the verdict said.Another “unnatural” conduct, Panwar observed, was the survivors maintaining “cordial relations” with Singh for years after the alleged incidents, even inviting him to family functions and weddings. “It is understandable as alleged that Singh, being the then WFI president, could have spoiled their careers if they had made complaint against him; however, it is not at all understandable as to why cordial relations were maintained with him for years.”The survivors even met higher authorities but failed to disclose the alleged acts, and, since no formal complaint or retaliation followed, the court concluded that it was “highly improbable that the alleged acts are true”.The judge also found the allegations “strikingly similar”, made at the same time and at a common place, indicating “prior meticulous planning”. “I have no hitch in saying that the version given by the (two) victims (who turned hostile) discredits the prosecution case completely and also shows that the entire allegations are false and fabricated, made collectively at the instance of (two other wrestlers) and the coaches of Mahadev Academy... in deep conspiracy, which seems to be motivated politically.”The court also questioned how the complaints were prepared, noting that before the dharna, no sexual harassment allegation or names of alleged survivors were mentioned. Subsequently, “selected” wrestlers came forward and “same/similar allegations were incorporated in the tailor-made formal complaints drafted in a fancy manner, with similar excessive decoration”. Of the five survivors, the two who turned hostile “categorically admitted that no sexual harassment acts were committed against them” and their statements were given under threat.
