The acquittal of former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh by a Delhi court marks the conclusion of a high-profile legal saga that has gripped the nation for two years. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ashwini Panwar delivered a stinging verdict, ultimately clearing both Singh and former WFI assistant secretary Vinod Tomar of all charges. In his detailed judgment, Magistrate Panwar did not mince words, characterizing the sexual harassment allegations as “false and fabricated.” He went further to suggest that the entire case was rooted in a “deep conspiracy,” appearing to be driven by political motivations rather than authentic grievances.
The court’s scrutiny of the prosecution’s evidence revealed deep-seated issues with the consistency of the testimonies provided. Throughout the proceedings, the judge highlighted “material contradictions” that weakened the foundation of the accusations. For instance, the court pointed to an alleged incident during an Olympic qualification event; the complainant initially claimed it took place in Turkey in 2015, only to later shift the location and time to Mongolia in 2016. The judge noted that this was not merely a peripheral detail but a fundamental error regarding the time and place, casting significant doubt on the credibility of the entire account.
A central point of contention for the court was the absence of “contemporaneous complaints.” Several of the alleged incidents were said to have occurred in public spaces, such as inside a Delhi stadium, in the presence of coaches, family members, and fellow athletes. The court observed that it was entirely unnatural for these witnesses to remain silent if such harassment were truly taking place, as one would expect bystanders to intervene or confront the accused. The lack of independent witnesses coming forward to corroborate the events further undermined the prosecution’s narrative, leading the judge to conclude that the testimonies felt rehearsed rather than genuine.
Perhaps most damaging to the prosecution’s case were the statements from witnesses who turned hostile during the trial. These individuals testified that they had been coerced into participating in the allegations under pressure and threats, allegedly at the direction of coaches from the Mahadev Academy. These witnesses explicitly denied that any sexual harassment had occurred, stating that their earlier statements—given under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure—were forced. The court observed that these victims had maintained cordial, ongoing relations with the accused long after the purported incidents, which directly contradicted the behavior one would expect from survivors of harassment.
The judgment also shed light on the timing and uniformity of the complaints. The court noted that in the initial phases of the protest movement, no specific allegations of sexual harassment were raised. It was only later, when the movement gained momentum, that formal, highly similar complaints were filed. The judge remarked on the “fancy” and “tailor-made” nature of these filings, suggesting they were organized in a way that appeared to be coordinated rather than organic. This “similarity in allegations,” combined with the long delays in reporting, led the judge to find more than sufficient reasonable doubt to discredit the entire prosecution story.
In the final analysis, the court’s ruling serves as a stark reminder of the importance of evidence in the pursuit of justice. By highlighting the disconnect between the grave nature of the accusations and the inconsistent, contradictory testimony provided during the trial, the bench emphasized that a case must rely on facts rather than public sentiment or political narratives. As Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh moves forward following his acquittal, the verdict stands as a judicial declaration that the allegations, in the eyes of the law, failed the test of credibility, leaving behind a complex legacy of how such high-stakes legal battles are fought in the public eye.