Delhi Court Acquits Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in Wrestlers' Sexual Harassment Case, Cites Inconsistencies in Testimony

Kaustav Chowdhury
Aug 4
5 min read

A Delhi court on August 3, 2026, acquitted former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) president and ex-BJP MP Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and former WFI assistant secretary Vinod Tomar in the sexual harassment case filed by six women wrestlers. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Ashwini Panwar of the Rouse Avenue Courts pronounced the acquittal, citing inconsistencies, contradictions, and unexplained delays in the complainants' testimonies. The prosecution had examined 32 witnesses during the trial, which lasted more than two years.

Background: The Wrestlers' Protest and FIR

The case originated from complaints filed in April 2023, but the allegations against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh first surfaced in January 2023 when several prominent Indian wrestlers, including Olympic and World Championship medallists Sakshi Malik, Vinesh Phogat, and Bajrang Punia, organised a sit-in protest at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. The wrestlers alleged that Singh, in his capacity as WFI president, had sexually harassed multiple women wrestlers over a period of years. The protests drew national and international attention and became one of the most high-profile public demonstrations in recent Indian sports history.

Following the protests, six women wrestlers filed formal complaints with the Delhi Police. The police registered an FIR and subsequently filed a chargesheet in June 2023 against Singh for offences under Sections 354 (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 354A (sexual harassment, including sexually coloured remarks), 354D (stalking), and 506 Part 1 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Vinod Tomar was named as a co-accused under Section 506 Part 1 for allegedly intimidating one of the complainants. Since the FIR was registered in 2023, before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita came into force, the case was prosecuted under the provisions of the IPC. The procedural aspects of the case, including how criminal complaints are filed in India, were followed in accordance with the established legal framework.

The Trial Proceedings

The trial court framed charges against Singh in May 2024 under IPC Sections 354, 354A, 354D, and 506(1) in relation to five of the six complainants, while discharging him in connection with one complainant. Tomar was charged under Section 506 Part 1 for intimidation of one complainant. Both accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The process of seeking discharge in criminal cases is a critical stage in criminal proceedings, and the partial discharge of Singh in relation to one complainant indicated that the court found insufficient grounds in that specific instance.

The prosecution examined 32 witnesses over the course of the trial, including the six complainants, police officers involved in the investigation, and other witnesses. The defence was represented by advocates Rajiv Mohan, Rishabh Bhati, and Rehan Khan, while the women wrestlers were represented by senior advocate Rebecca John. The statements of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC were recorded in June 2026, and final arguments were completed on July 2, 2026. The court reserved its verdict and delivered the judgment on August 3. The handling of witness testimony in criminal trials was a central issue in this case, with the defence focusing extensively on inconsistencies in the complainants' accounts.

Reasons for Acquittal

ACJM Ashwini Panwar identified several grounds for acquitting both accused. The court found significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of the complainants. The judgment noted that the complainants' accounts of the alleged incidents contained material discrepancies that undermined their credibility. The court also pointed to unexplained delays in the filing of complaints, observing that the first formal complaints were made only in April 2023, despite the alleged incidents spanning several years during Singh's tenure as WFI president.

The court further observed that the post-incident conduct of some of the complainants was inconsistent with the behaviour expected of victims of sexual harassment. The judgment noted instances where complainants had continued to attend events organised by the WFI, had expressed gratitude to Singh publicly, or had not raised objections at the time of the alleged incidents. While the court acknowledged that victims of sexual offences may not always report immediately, it held that the cumulative effect of these inconsistencies, combined with the contradictions in the testimonies, created reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case. This analysis connects to the broader legal principles governing the evaluation of evidence in cases involving serious criminal charges.

The defence argued that the allegations were politically motivated and had been timed to coincide with the wrestlers' campaign for changes in the WFI leadership. The defence maintained that Singh had been the target of a coordinated effort to remove him from the federation's presidency. The court, while not explicitly endorsing this theory, held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Provisions and Analysis

Section 354 of the IPC, which deals with assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, carries a punishment of imprisonment ranging from one to five years with fine. Section 354A covers sexual harassment, including physical contact, demands for sexual favours, making sexually coloured remarks, and showing pornography, with punishment ranging from one to three years of imprisonment. Section 354D addresses stalking, with penalties including imprisonment up to three years for a first offence. Section 506 Part 1 deals with criminal intimidation and carries a punishment of up to two years of imprisonment. The procedural protections available to accused persons under the criminal codes were observed throughout the trial, ensuring that both the prosecution and the defence had full opportunity to present their cases.

The standard of proof in criminal cases requires the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court's conclusion that the prosecution failed to meet this standard is based on the well-established principle that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. In cases involving allegations of sexual harassment, courts must weigh the testimony of the complainants carefully, but the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt remains the governing standard. Procedural remedies such as filing appeals against acquittal orders are available to the prosecution and the complainants if they wish to challenge the verdict before a higher court.

Reactions and Way Forward

The acquittal has generated sharply divided reactions. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh welcomed the verdict, claiming vindication after what he described as years of false accusations. The wrestlers' legal team, led by senior advocate Rebecca John, expressed disappointment and indicated that the complainants were considering filing an appeal. The prosecution has also indicated that it will review the detailed judgment and decide on the appropriate course of action.

The case has had a lasting impact on Indian sports governance. The WFI was suspended by the Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports during the pendency of the investigation, and elections were held under court supervision. The protests by elite athletes brought unprecedented public attention to the issue of sexual harassment in sports federations. Regardless of the court's verdict, the case has prompted calls for stronger institutional safeguards and complaint mechanisms within sports bodies to protect athletes from abuse.

The detailed judgment is expected to be made available in the coming days. If the complainants choose to appeal, the case will be heard by the Sessions Court, which has the power to reverse the acquittal if it finds that the trial court's assessment of the evidence was perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The case, which has spanned more than three years from the initial protests to the verdict, marks a significant chapter in the broader conversation about criminal justice and the rights of victims and accused persons in India. It remains to be seen whether this acquittal will be the final word or whether the legal battle will continue in higher courts.