Contradictions in wrestlers statements, claims Brij Bhushan, urges court to discharge him

He further argued that if a prima facie case is made out against the accused, then a committee made under POSH Act ought to forward the case to the police within 7 days. “Since no prima facie case was found out by the oversight committee, no FIR was registered… it is a case of direct exoneration,” said Mohan. He argued that non-recommendation of the FIR was equivalent to the fact that no case was found against his client.

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Harjeet Singh Jaspal asked Mohan if he was seeking exoneration from the oversight committee, to which the latter replied in the affirmative. In earlier hearings, however, Mohan had pointed out that the committee had exonerated the accused.

“I’m not saying that if I’m exonerated by the committee, criminal proceedings against me cannot take place. I have neither been implicated nor exonerated,” said Mohan.

Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Atul Kumar Srivastava, however, argued that the Oversight Committee wasn’t comparable to an ICC under the POSH Act and, therefore, gave no benefit to the accused.

Referring to Section 4 of the POSH Act, Srivastava argued that the committee formed under the Act must constitute members of an NGO which was not the case in the oversight committee.

“The very constitution of the oversight committee is not in compliance with section 4 of POSH Act and, therefore, will give no benefits to the accused,” said Srivastava.

The APP further pointed out that it was redundant to talk about contradictions in the statements of the victims at the stage of charge and that contradictions should be addressed at the stage of evidence.

Arguments on charge will now be heard on October 3 where Mohan is expected to conclude his arguments.