Delhi Court Grants Final Opportunity for Response in Wrestlers’ Appeal Against Brij Bhushan Singh Acquittal

Latest procedural development

Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh at the Rouse Avenue Courts granted a final opportunity for a response in the appeal filed by four women wrestlers. Notice had earlier been issued to Singh on 28 September 2026. The appeal challenges an acquittal recorded by an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 3 August 2026. The reported direction concerns the filing of a reply and progression of appellate proceedings. It should not be represented as a finding that the acquittal was wrong or that the accused has been convicted.

What the appellants challenge

The women wrestlers contend that the trial court adopted an erroneous and selective appreciation of evidence. According to the appeal, the acquittal rested in part on assumptions about how complainants of sexual harassment should behave. They argue that the trial court failed to assess the evidence fairly in its full circumstances. These are grounds advanced by the appellants and remain to be examined in the appeal. The present court has not, in the reported proceeding, accepted those criticisms as final findings.

Trial court’s reasons as reported

The trial court acquitted Singh of charges under Sections 354, 354A and 506 Part I of the Indian Penal Code after finding that the prosecution had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Its reasoning referred to delayed complaints, continuing cordial relations, photographs of social and family occasions, and contradictions in testimony. The appellate challenge focuses partly on how those circumstances were interpreted. A reviewing court must consider the actual trial record and applicable appellate standards rather than decide the matter from isolated public statements.

Importance of evidence-based appellate scrutiny

Criminal appeals against acquittal raise questions different from those at the initial complaint stage. The appellate court must examine whether the trial court's evaluation of the evidence and legal standards can stand. The presumption of innocence and the findings of the trial court remain significant until lawfully displaced. At the same time, an appellant may contend that legally irrelevant stereotypes or improper reasoning affected the outcome. Both principles are relevant here, but neither predetermines the result of this particular appeal.

Distinguishing procedural orders from findings

A direction to file a response gives the opposing party an opportunity to address the grounds of challenge. It is not a rehearing verdict and does not itself establish the truth or falsity of any allegation. The complainants' assertions, the defence position, the trial court's reasoning and any eventual appellate conclusions should therefore be kept separate. This distinction is especially important in reporting sensitive sexual harassment proceedings, where a procedural step can easily be mistaken for a substantive judicial determination.

What happens next

The immediate next step is the response sought by the appellate court, followed by further consideration of the grounds raised against the acquittal. The accessible report does not provide a verified next hearing date or reproduce the signed procedural order, so no such detail is assumed. The case remains at the appellate stage. For observers, the central issue will be whether the appellate court finds a legally sustainable basis to interfere with the trial court's assessment, not merely whether the parties disagree about the underlying evidence.

Case Details

Appeal by four women wrestlers against the 3 August 2026 acquittal of Brij Bhushan Singh; Special Judge Dig Vinay Singh, Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi.

Relevant Bare Act

Indian Penal Code, 1860; relevant provisions: 354, 354A, 506 Part I. The specific legal connection is identified from the verified proceedings and is not a claim that every listed provision was interpreted in the decision.