New Delhi: The counsel for BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh submitted that one of the complainants was a member of the sexual harassment committee, but she never disclosed the incident that occurred in Kazakhstan in 2012 until April 2023.
The counsel also submitted that she made the allegations because she was not qualified for the Olympics in 2015. Every complaint has a reason behind it.
After hearing part arguments of the defence on charges against Singh, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Harjeet Singh Jaspal adjourned the matter till October 16.
Advocate Rajiv Mohan counsel for Mr Singh argued after Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Atul Srivastava concluded his arguments for Delhi police.
Counsel for the accused submitted that almost every complainant changed her statement. Cosmetic and improved statements were given to implicate the accused, counsel argued.
Advocate Rajiv Mohan started his arguments by referring to the incidents that took place outside India.
He also referred to the complaint of one of the complainants and submitted her statement was dropped very conveniently by saying that it pertains to the incident that took place 11 years ago in Kazakhstan in 2012.
He argued that in fact, she was a member of the Sexual Harassment committee constituted in December 2022. She never said anything about the incident in Kazakhstan. However, she stated that she was not aware that her name was included in the committee.
Counsel for Singh also submitted that this complaint, her mother, her roommate and Anita were informed of this incident but they never disclosed it before 2023.
As per the statement of the complainant, the accused was in conversation with their mother. There is not a single word of sexual harassment.
Advocate Rajiv Mohan also submitted that the FIR was lodged on April 28, 2023. Six complaints were clubbed into it.
He submitted that Incidents are not instant. This alleged incident took place a long time ago. No incident of April 28. The FIR is delayed.
He further referred to the statement of the other Complainants who stated that they did not disclose the incidents of sexual harassment as they were conscious about their careers.
Counsel also referred to the incident of sexual harassment during the photo session. He argued that another woman was standing near the accused, but she never had any such incident.
The allegations of sexual harassment were levelled against the accused in 2023. The first protest was started in January. The complaint is of April 2023.
In her section 164 Crpc, statement, She did not disclose the fact of being a member of the committee, the counsel argued.
Counsel for the accused further argued that her Mother's statement on June 1. She was aware but remained silent about the incident of 2012 till 2023.
She did not stop her daughter from participating in the event of WFI.
Prosecution witness Anita's statement was recorded on May 20, 2023. This witness was also told in 2012 about the incident in Kazakhstan.
Prosecution witness Pooja Dhanda denied the allegations before the oversight committee. She denied the allegations of Harassment by any women wrestlers.
Earlier, SPP Atul Srivastava concluded his arguments and submitted that one of the complainants said that one incident took place at the WFI office in New Delhi. And there are similar statements.
Sanction under section 188 Crpc is not required in this case as all the offences are not committed outside India, SPP submitted. The offence of 354 IPC is not time-barred. On the last date, he said that whenever and wherever he got the opportunity he committed the offence.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)