Asking for physical relations amounts to knowingly outraging modesty: Prosecution in Brij Bhushan case

Srivastava argued in court that deliberate intention of outraging the modesty of a woman is not required for attracting a punishment under Section 354 (assault or criminal force with the intent of outraging the modesty of a woman) of the IPC.

During earlier hearings on framing of charges, Rajiv Mohan, representing Bhushan, had argued that only “hugging” did not amount to sexual assault, and thus did not form a case under Section 354.

Addressing earlier arguments made by Bhushan, Srivastava argued that the accused had asked the victims for physical relations, which amounted to outraging their modesty knowingly.

Citing various judgments, Srivastava further said that the ingredients that make up a case of section 354 are neither solely the intention behind the act nor the reaction of the woman whose modesty is outraged. He argued that mere knowledge that the woman’s modesty will be outraged is enough to make a case of section 354 of the IPC.
The PP also said that the onus of this offence lies on the accused, adding that he should follow self-restraint.

‘Oversight committee did not exonerate accused’

Earlier, Mohan argued that the oversight committee had exonerated Bhushan of the charges against him.

Referring to this committee which was set up to inquire into the allegations against Bhushan, Srivastava argued that the committee did not exonerate the accused. He further said that the committee did not give an outcome, but merely some recommendations.

Citing various judgments, the PP further said that the outcomes of adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent and not binding on each other, adding these can be launched simultaneously.

“Exoneration by committee shouldn’t be on a technical ground, but on the basis of merits. Otherwise, criminal prosecution may continue,” said Srivastava.

Relying on a Supreme Court judgment, Srivastava also said that only if both cases are mirror images of each other can the criminal prosecution not continue after an exoneration.

“The tasks given to the sports committee were to check for sexual misconduct, harassment, administrative lapses and financial irregularities,” said the PP arguing that the current issue was not a mirror image of the issue looked at by the enquiry committee.

While Srivastava said that the enquiry committee report will be of no help to the accused, senior advocate Rebecca John, representing the six women wrestlers, had earlier termed the oversight committee as hogwash and the manner in which the committee recorded the statements of the wrestlers as “biased”.

John had further said that the committee did not function according to the guidelines of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act.

The matter is being heard in Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Harjeet Singh Jaspal’s court with the next date set at September 23. Advocate Mohan, who is representing Bhushan, is expected to respond to the arguments made by the wrestlers and the State in the next hearing.