Weeks after a Delhi court acquitted former Wrestling Federation of India chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case, four women wrestlers have appealed. Their central argument is that the acquittal rested on ‘archaic and stereotypical assumptions’ about how a victim of sexual assault is ‘expected’ to behave, rather than on a fair, evidence-based assessment. The appeal will be heard by a Delhi sessions court.
New Delhi: Four women wrestlers have moved a Delhi court challenging the acquittal of BJP leader and former Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh in a sexual harassment case, and also challenging the acquittal of co-accused, former WFI Secretary Vinod Tomar.
The appeal is to be heard by Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh of the Rouse Avenue Courts. It challenges the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) on August 3, by which both were acquitted.
The grounds of appeal
The appellants contend that the acquittal is unsustainable in law and founded on a manifestly erroneous and selective appreciation of the evidence. The order, they argue, proceeds on conjectures and surmises, fails to apply binding and well-settled principles of law, and, in material part, rests its reasoning on “archaic and stereotypical assumptions” about the “expected” behaviour of victims of sexual assault and harassment, rather than on a fair, evidence-based assessment made after taking into account the circumstances of the complainants.
The challenge targets, in particular, the trial court’s reliance on the complainants’ prolonged silence, their continued cordial relations with the accused, and contradictions in their testimony, factors the ACJM had treated as creating reasonable doubt. The trial court had noted photographs suggesting the accused had been invited to family functions, and had observed that, while it was understandable that the women might have feared for their careers, it was not understandable why cordial relations were maintained over years, reasoning the appeal now assails as stereotypical.
The trial court’s acquittal
By its August 3 order, the ACJM had acquitted Singh of charges under Sections 354, 354A and 506 (Part I) of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, and had acquitted Tomar of the charge under Section 506 (Part I). The Delhi Police had filed the charge-sheet under Sections 354 (outraging the modesty of a woman), 354A (sexual harassment), 354D (stalking) and 506(1) (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, with Section 109 (abetment) additionally invoked against Tomar. Separately, a cancellation report had earlier been filed in a POCSO case that had been registered in the matter.
The allegations, as reported, related to incidents said to have occurred between 2016 and 2019. It bears emphasis that the accused were acquitted at trial, and are therefore presumed innocent; the appeal challenges that acquittal, and nothing in it has been established.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court Closes POCSO Case Against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, Cites Lack Of Evidence
Why it matters
The appeal squarely raises a question that has recurred in the law on sexual offences: whether a court, in assessing the credibility of a complainant, may draw adverse inferences from her delay in complaining or her continued interaction with the accused. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against judging survivors of sexual offences by stereotyped notions of how a “real” victim behaves, recognising that delay and continued contact may be explained by fear, dependence, power imbalance or social pressure. The appellants’ case is that the trial court’s reasoning fell into precisely that error; whether it did is what the appellate court will examine.
At the same time, an appeal against acquittal operates within well-defined limits. An acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence, and an appellate court will ordinarily interfere only where the trial court’s view is not merely erroneous but unreasonable or perverse, or where it has ignored material evidence or misapplied settled law. The appellants will therefore have to show not just that a different view was possible, but that the acquittal cannot be sustained on the evidence and the law; that is the threshold the appellate court will apply.
Nothing has been decided on the appeal, which is yet to be heard. The acquittal recorded by the trial court stands, and the accused remain presumed innocent; the appellate court will consider whether to admit the appeal and, if so, whether the acquittal warrants interference. This report expresses no view on the merits of the allegations or of the acquittal, and the identities of the complainants are protected.
Court: Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi
Matter: Appeal by four women wrestlers against the ACJM’s order dated August 3, 2026 acquitting Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh (and co-accused Vinod Tomar) in the sexual harassment case
Status: Appeal filed, to be heard. Acquittal stands; accused presumed innocent; allegations not established. Complainants’ identities protected.
This report concerns a matter involving allegations of sexual offences. If you or someone you know needs support, the women’s helpline 181 and the police helpline 112 can direct you to assistance.