Were serious sexual harassment allegations against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh actually false, rehearsed and politically motivated? Delhi court acquitted Singh and Vinod Tomar after two wrestlers turned hostile and the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
DELHI: A Delhi court has acquitted former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and former WFI Assistant Secretary Vinod Tomar in the widely reported women wrestlers’ sexual harassment case, after finding that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
The case had remained in the national spotlight since 2023, when women wrestlers levelled allegations of sexual harassment against Singh and protests were held demanding action against him. However, the trial ultimately ended in acquittal on August 3, 2026.
Significantly, two wrestlers whose allegations had formed part of the prosecution case turned hostile during the trial and did not support the prosecution. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ashwini Panwar, Rouse Avenue Courts, reportedly found serious problems with the prosecution version and observed that the allegations appeared rehearsed, well-practised and planted, particularly considering the delay in filing the complaints.
The Court made strong observations on how the allegations had emerged together. It said that the statements of the two wrestlers who later turned hostile completely weakened the prosecution case. According to the Court, the allegations appeared false and fabricated, were allegedly made collectively at the instance of one wrestler, a male wrestler and coaches of Mahadev Academy, and seemed to be part of a deep conspiracy with political motivation. The Court also noted that the two wrestlers had initially been projected as victims, but later stated before the Court that no acts of sexual harassment had been committed against them.
The criminal case arose from allegations made by six women wrestlers against Singh. Delhi Police registered an FIR and, on June 15, 2023, filed a chargesheet against him for offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354D and 506(1) IPC, relating to outraging the modesty of a woman, sexual harassment, stalking and criminal intimidation.
On May 10, 2024, the trial court found sufficient material at the charge stage to frame charges against Singh under Sections 354 and 354A IPC, while charges under Section 506(1) IPC were also framed in relation to two wrestlers. Tomar was charged with criminal intimidation concerning one complainant.
A minor wrestler had separately made allegations against Singh, but she later withdrew her complaint. Delhi Police thereafter filed a cancellation report in the POCSO case, which was subsequently closed.
The August 3 judgment changed the outcome of the remaining criminal prosecution. According to the reported findings, before the wrestlers’ 2023 protest, one of the prosecution witnesses had not made sexual harassment allegations against Singh and no name of any female wrestler who had faced alleged sexual harassment had been mentioned.
The Court further observed:
“Then the female wrestlers who were selected came forward and then same/similar allegations were incorporated in the tailor-made formal complaints drafted in fancy manner with similar excessive decoration and the same were filed on 21.04.2023, before the police,”
The Court also placed importance on the fact that two of the five complainants whose allegations had resulted in charges being framed ultimately did not support the prosecution case. It observed:
“To say this, I draw strength from the fact that out of five victims on whose allegation charges were framed against the accused persons, two have not supported the case of the prosecution, and they stated that they were forced/pressured to give their statement at the instance of PW 5 and PW 10 [the wrestler’s husband].”
The Court ultimately held that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted both Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh and Vinod Tomar.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTION
| Law / Section | What It Means | Application In This Case |
| Section 354 IPC | Assault or criminal force against a woman intending to outrage, or knowing it is likely to outrage, her modesty. | Singh was charge-sheeted, and charges were framed under this provision. He was ultimately acquitted. |
| Section 354A IPC | Defines and punishes specified forms of sexual harassment. | This was one of the principal provisions invoked against Singh. The prosecution ultimately failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Section 354D IPC | Punishes stalking as defined by the provision. | Delhi Police included this provision in the 2023 chargesheet. |
| Section 506(1) IPC | Punishes criminal intimidation falling within the first part of Section 506. | Charges were framed against Singh concerning two wrestlers; Tomar also faced a criminal-intimidation charge concerning one complainant. Both were acquitted. |
| POCSO Act | Special legislation dealing with sexual offences against children. | A minor wrestler had separately made allegations. She later withdrew her complaint, police filed a cancellation report and that case was subsequently closed. |
| Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt | The prosecution in a criminal trial must establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. | The Court ultimately found that the prosecution failed to meet this standard and acquitted Singh and Tomar. |
CASE DETAILS
| Case Particular | Details |
| Case Title | State v. Brij Bhushan Singh & Anr. * |
| Court | Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi |
| Presiding Judge | Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ashwini Panwar |
| Accused | Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh; Vinod Tomar |
| Judgment Date | August 3, 2026 |
| Sections Involved | Sections 354, 354A, 354D and 506(1) IPC |
COUNSELS APPEARED
| Party | Counsel |
| Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh | Advocates Rajiv Mohan, Rishabh Bhati, Rehan Khan and Suryansh Singh |
| Women Wrestlers | Senior Advocate Rebecca John, with Advocates Bhavook Chauhan, Harsh Bora, Chinmay Kanojia and Anushka Baruah |
| State | Advocate Manish Rawat |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Two complainants turned hostile, and the prosecution’s own case began collapsing from within.
- The Court reportedly called the allegations “false and fabricated” and said the conspiracy appeared politically motivated.
- The Court questioned the strikingly similar “tailor-made” complaints, raising serious doubts about how the allegations were built.
- Brij Bhushan faced years of accusations, protests, headlines and public conviction before any judicial conviction existed.
- A false case may end in acquittal, but the lost years, damaged name and public humiliation are rarely restored. That is the punishment before punishment.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.
