Brij Bhushan case: The court has given one day’s reprieve to former Indian Wrestling Federation president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, accused of sexual harassment of female wrestlers. Additional Chief Metropolitan Judge Harjeet Singh Jaspal of the Rouse Avenue court listed the case for further hearing on October 30 after hearing arguments from both sides.

Jagran correspondent, New Delhi. Brij Bhushan case: A court granted one day’s reprieve to former Wrestling Federation of India president Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, who was accused of sexually harassing female wrestlers. Additional Chief Metropolitan Judge Harjeet Singh Jaspal of the Rouse Avenue court listed the case for further hearing on October 30 after hearing arguments from both sides.

Brijbhushan’s barrister gave this argument

Senior advocate Rajeev Mohan, appearing for Brij Bhushan, said that the inspection committee under the Pash Act is similar to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). The lawyer said that if prima facie evidence is found against the accused under Section 11 of the Crimes Act, the ICC will recommend filing of an FIR against the accused within seven days, but it can be said that the monitoring committee has not yet taken any decision. No action has been taken. decision. The Oversight Board clearly saw no case against his client.

He argued that not recommending an FIR in the case would mean that there would be no case, but the oversight committee report was not used to exonerate his client.

The lawyer argued that the statement given to the Oversight Committee under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act was an old statement. He said there were contradictions in the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The female wrestlers later changed their statements so they should be rejected.

This was the argument of the Additional Public Prosecutor

Another prosecutor appearing for Delhi Police argued that the charter of the inspection committee itself was inconsistent with Section 4 of the Poch Act. Therefore it cannot be called similar to ICC. He said that since the inspection committee did not make any recommendation, there was no question of acquittal.

The prosecutor said it was meaningless to talk about the concept of previous statements at this stage. It is correct to give this argument at the level of evidence, not before.

Report input- Ritika Mishra