New Delhi, Sep 17 The report of the Oversight Committee cannot be called an exoneration,
prosecution submitted before a Delhi court while hearing arguments on the charges against BJP MP and former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) president BrijBhushan Sharan Singh in alleged sexualharassment case filed by women wrestlers.
The court adjourned the matter for hearing further arguments on charge for September 23,
Brij Bhushan and Vinod Tomar both along with their Counsels were present before the court at the time of hearing the arguments on charge.
Prosecution submitted before the court at the time of art on charge that in the matter at hand,the report of the Oversight Committee cannot be called an exoneration.
He contended that the defence can claim benefit of administrative departmental proceedings only if the said proceedings and the proceedings before the criminal court are identical, which is not the case in matter at hand.
Government counsel has placed various authorities of Apex Court and High Court in support of his arguments.
He further argued that the terms of reference of the Oversight Committee and the nature and the scope of the investigation / further proceedings, in the matter at hand, are largely distinct and therefore, the Oversight Committee has no bearing on the present proceedings.
Lastly, the Oversight Committee Report does not provide for any adjudication / decision. It Merely makes recommendations and thus, by no stretch of imagination, the said report can be called an exoneration.
He argued that the charges under sections 354 and 354A Indian Penal Code (IPC) are made out against both the accused persons and necessary requirement for application of section 354 IPC is the knowledge of the accused and the same is discernible from the statements of the victims recorded under section 164 CrPC.
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Harjeet Singh Jaspal after arguments on charge said, “In support thereof, Prosecutor has placed on record the various judgments.Drawing the attention of the court to sections 221 and 222 of Criminals Procedure Code(CrPC) itis argued that even as per the legislative mandate, it is permissible to frame charges under both the aforesaid sections.”
“Matter be now taken up for further arguments on September 23,” the court said.
Delhi Police after investigation, on June 15, filed a charge sheet under sections 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A (sexual harassment), 354D(stalking) and 506 (criminal intimidation) defined under Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Singh.
ACMM court after taking cognisance on the charge sheet issued summons against Singh and his assistant secretary Vinod Tomar for his appearance on July 18 and after appearance on July 20 granted regular bail on furnishing the personal bond of Rs 25,000. Now, the case is at the stage of hearing the arguments on charge.
Counsel for Singh had opposed the framing of charges against Singh by submitting that since there is no sanction under sections 188 CrPC, the offences alleged to have been committed outside India cannot be tried by this court.
He also argued that offences committed outside the local jurisdiction of Delhi, cannot be tried by this court.
He further submitted that police report does not furnish any sufficient explanation for the said delay and no generic explanation can be accepted to condone the delay.
Government counsel submitted that the submissions made by the Defence counsel are not meritorious, arguing that the bar of section 188 is applicable when the offence is committed outside India in its entirety and not otherwise.
He contended that the offences in question have partly been committed in Delhi and partly outside, and therefore, the Delhi court will have jurisdiction.
