The victims had initially been hesitant to level allegations against the accused, fearing that doing so could jeopardise their careers. When they eventually came forward, they gave “wrong” details about the country and year in which the alleged incident took place.
The court described the contradiction as “fatal to the prosecution case”.
“All the victims have deposed that they did not make allegations against the accused persons timely as they feared loss of their career… When they took up the courage to do so, they ended up mentioning the wrong country and the wrong year as the alleged place and year of the incident in question… The shift in the first/initial version of the witness with respect to the place/country and the year where the incident allegedly occurred is fatal to the prosecution story,” the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Ashwani Panwar noted in his August 3 order.
The women had levelled the allegations against Singh in 2023, when he was president of the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) at the time. Vinod Tomar, the then Assistant Secretary of the WFI, was also acquitted in the case.
The order was given to the counsel in the case on August 10.
In the order, ACJM Panwar also said the allegations are “false and fabricated” and “seem to be motivated politically”,
Story continues below this ad
“… I have no hitch in saying that the version given by the victims ‘P’ and ‘I P’ discredit the prosecution case completely and also show that the entire allegations are false and fabricated made collectively at the instance of ‘V P’, ‘B P’, and the coaches of Mahadev academy, against the accused persons in deep conspiracy which seems to be motivated politically,” the court said.
“Both ‘P’ and ‘I P’ were projected as victims right from the inception, however, they appeared before the court and were eventually counselled. They categorically admitted that no sexual harassment acts were committed against them…,” ACJM Panwar added.
The court also noted that some victims continued to maintain “cordial relations” with Singh.
“It is also relevant to mention that the victims remained silent for many years after the alleged incidents and besides that, they also kept cordial relations with A1 [Accused 1]. Many photographs on record verify the same. He was invited to family functions and wedding ceremonies by the victims,” the judge said in the order.
Story continues below this ad
“It is understandable as alleged that A1 being the then WFI President could have spoiled their careers if they had made a complaint against him. However, it is not at all understandable as to why cordial relations were [maintained] with him for years,” he added.
“Since nobody made any formal complaint or retaliated to the alleged acts of A1, it is highly improbable that the alleged acts are true. The victims even met the higher authorities but failed to disclose the alleged acts to them,” the judge said.
The court also noted various “inconsistencies” and “improvements” in the statements of the complainants.
“… Female wrestlers who were selected came forward, and same/similar allegations, [which] were incorporated in the tailor-made formal complaints drafted in fancy manner, with similar excessive decoration… and… were filed on 21.04.2023 before the police,” the court observed.
Story continues below this ad
Of the six complainants, two later turned hostile. In allegations levelled by a third complainant, charges were not framed. The court noted this in its judgment as well.
“To say this, I draw strength from the fact that out of five victims on whose allegations charges were framed against the accused persons, two have not supported the case of the prosecution… they stated that they were forced/pressured to give their statement at the instance of PW 5 and PW 10 [husband of one of the wrestlers],” the court said.
In relation to another incident, the court noted that even though it was “stated to have taken place at a public place, in the presence of several persons”, no specific date was furnished by the witness and no independent person present at the venue was identified as an eyewitness.
ACJM Panwar also noted in his judgement that the conduct of the husbands of one of the wrestlers was “inconsistent with the prosecution’s case of continuing hostility” arising from one of the alleged incidents.
Story continues below this ad
The court said that the complainant and her husband “maintained cordial relations with the accused” and after the alleged incident, both of them visited the accused at his residence to seek his blessings for their marriage.
The trial in the case was completed three years after a chargesheet was filed. A total of 32 prosecution witnesses were examined. Two complainants had alleged that Singh touched them inappropriately and sexually using the pretext of checking their breathing patterns.
The timeline
-On April 28, 2023, an FIR was registered at the Connaught Place police station against Singh and Tomar. A separate FIR was also registered in the same police station for POCSO offences on the complaint of a minor victim.
-On June 15, 2023, police filed a 1,500-page chargesheet against Singh for alleged sexual harassment, assault and stalking of six women wrestlers, and mentioned statements from at least 22 witnesses across four states, including wrestlers, a referee, a coach and a physiotherapist.
Story continues below this ad
-On the same day, police filed a report requesting the cancellation of a the POCSO case against Singh after the minor and her father withdrew their allegations.
-In May 2024, a Delhi court framed charges against Singh for assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty and sexual harassment,
As of today, both the POCSO case and the sexual harassment case against Singh stand closed. It is learnt that the counsel of the complainants are likely to move higher courts appealing against the acquittal.
The defence was led by advocates Rajiv Mohan, Rishabh Bhati, Rehan Khan and Suryansh Singh. Public Prosecutor Manish Rawat represented the state and senior advocate Rebecca John, who was assisted by advocates Bhavook Chauhan, Harsh Bora and Anushka Baruah, appeared for four complainants.
