Bombay HC Overturns Tarun Tejpal's Acquittal, Convicts Him in 2013 Tehelka Sexual Assault Case [Read Judgment]

Goa: The Bombay High Court's Bench at Goa has set aside the acquittal of former Tehelka Editor-in-Chief Tarunjit Tejpal and convicted him for the sexual assault of a junior colleague during the THiNK Fest in November 2013. 

A Division Bench of Justices Dr Neela Gokhale and Amit S. Jamsandekar, allowed the State of Goa's appeal against the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa's Judgment and Order dated 21st May 2021, which had acquitted Tejpal of offences under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(k), 354, 354A, 354B, 341 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

According to the prosecution's case, the victim, then Principal Correspondent at Tehelka, was assigned to chaperone the festival's chief guest during THiNK Fest 2013 in Goa. She alleged that on the night of 7th November 2013, after dropping the chief guest at his room, the respondent instructed her to accompany him back inside the lift. There, he allegedly sexually assaulted her while manipulating the lift panel to keep the doors shut. A second assault allegedly occurred inside the lift the following night, under the pretext of retrieving an item for the chief guest.

Within hours of the first incident, the victim confided in three journalist colleagues. She later informed the respondent's daughter, who was also her close friend. On 18th November 2013, the victim e-mailed a detailed complaint to Tehelka's then Managing Editor, seeking a written apology and the constitution of an Internal Complaints Committee under the Visakha Guidelines.

The respondent subsequently sent two e-mails dated 19th November 2013, one addressed to the organisation and another to the victim personally. In these e-mails, he apologised for what he described as a "sexual liaison" and a "shameful lapse of judgment."

An FIR was registered on 22nd November 2013 following media reports and a communication from the National Commission for Women. The matter then proceeded to trial before the Sessions Court at Mapusa, where 71 prosecution witnesses and 4 defence witnesses were examined over several years.

The trial court had acquitted Tejpal in 2021, prompting the State to seek leave to appeal, which this Court granted in April 2022 on finding that a prima facie case was made out warranting reconsideration of the evidence. Before the Division Bench, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, argued that the trial court had ignored the statutory presumption against consent under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act, wrongly discarded corroborating testimony from the victim's colleagues and partner, and permitted an invasive, nearly 700-page cross-examination that put the victim's character on trial rather than the accused. 

Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, for Tejpal, contended that the victim's account of the lift doors being kept shut was mechanically impossible, that the FIR was delayed and the apology e-mails coerced, and that her post-incident conduct continuing her duties, socialising, and later negotiating a severance package was inconsistent with a genuine sexual assault victim.

The Bench found the victim's testimony to be of "sterling quality," holding that "her version has a direct correlation with the supporting material and consistently matches the version of every other witness", and that it inspired confidence even without corroboration. It also relied on CCTV footage placing Tejpal and the victim at the lift at the relevant time, on the depositions of seven corroborating witnesses, and on the Respondent's own apology e-mails, which the Court read as clear admissions rather than coerced confessions, observing that "no person of reasonable prudence would apologise falsely for such an incident, especially someone like him."

The Court was sharply critical of the trial court's approach, holding that it had proceeded on a stereotypical "perfect victim" construct and ignored "the reality of human coping mechanisms," and that the defence's cross-examination spanning nearly 1000 pages had made it seem as though "the victim and not the Respondent [was] on trial." 

The Bench held that Tejpal, as the victim's employer, mentor and her father's friend, occupied a position of "dominance, control, trust and authority" over her, attracting the aggravated categories of rape under Sections 376(2)(f) and (k) of the IPC. It rejected the defence's contentions regarding missing CCTV footage of the first floor as an unproved plea of alibi, and found no merit in the argument that the victim's demand for a severance package amounted to extortion.

On sentence, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the Court ought to weigh the fact that Tejpal repeated the offence the very next day and thus showed no remorse, adding that "when a woman says 'No', it means 'No'", which ought to have been understood by a man of the victim's father's age. 

Senior Advocate Mr Ponda sought leniency on account of Tejpal's age, clean record and thirteen-year lapse since the incident. 

The Bench, however, convicted Tejpal under Sections 376(2)(f) and (k), 354, 354A, 354B, 341 and 342 of the IPC, sentencing him to ten years' rigorous imprisonment each under Sections 376(2)(f) and (k), three years under Section 354B, one year each under Sections 354 and 354A, with fines aggregating Rs 10,10,000/-, all sentences to run concurrently and the entire fine amount to be paid to the victim. 

The period already undergone in custody during trial was ordered to be set off, and Tejpal was granted four weeks to surrender.

Appearances:

For the State: Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, with Mr Devidas J. Pangam, Advocate General, and Public Prosecutors and Additional Government Advocates.

For the Respondent: Mr Aabad Ponda, Senior Advocate, with Mr Subash Jadhav, Mr Raunaq Rao and Ms Tabitha Souto, Advocates.

Case Title: The State of Goa vs. Tarunjit Tejpal, Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2022

[Read Judgment]