The Bombay High Court has reserved its decision on the appeal filed by the State of Goa challenging the acquittal of former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal in a 2013 sexual assault case. The case, titled State of Goa v. Tarunjit Tejpal & Anr, was deliberated upon by a division bench comprising Justices Neela Gokhale and Amit Jamsandekar over seven sessions before reaching this stage.
State of Goa’s Appeal
During the proceedings, the State of Goa, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, argued that the original trial court’s judgment was flawed and biased. Mehta asserted that the trial court had improperly scrutinized the complainant instead of focusing on the accused’s actions, and had inappropriately considered the complainant’s personal life and messages. He described the judgment as a case of judicial perversity, with conclusions not supported by law or evidence.
Mehta highlighted several points of contention, including:
- The complainant faced intrusive and irrelevant questioning about consensual sex, drinking, and smoking, which violated established protections in sexual offence trials.
- The trial judge failed to prevent improper cross-examination, neglecting the courts’ role in upholding statutory safeguards for victims.
- WhatsApp chats and the complainant’s personal conduct were improperly used as character evidence, suggesting consent where none existed.
- Trauma is not uniform, and the trial court erred in interpreting the complainant’s behavior post-incident as indicative of a lack of distress.
- The complainant’s testimony remained consistent despite rigorous cross-examination, portraying her as a reliable witness.
- An apology email from Tejpal was cited, questioning why it would exist if no incident occurred.
Tarun Tejpal’s Defense
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda defended the acquittal, arguing that discrepancies in the complainant’s account were evident when compared with CCTV footage and expert evidence concerning the hotel’s lift functionality. Ponda claimed the allegations were motivated by personal and professional grievances, rather than genuine concern.
Key defense points included:
More Read
- The lift doors allegedly opened twice during the incident, contradicting claims of a continuous assault.
- CCTV footage purportedly showed the complainant interacting with Tejpal in a manner inconsistent with someone who felt threatened.
- Messages and communications suggested that the complainant behaved normally after the alleged incident.
- The complainant’s decision to delete messages and edit her narrative indicated possible manipulation of her account.
- The defense maintained that no sexual act occurred, emphasizing a complete denial strategy rather than a consent defense.
Assisting Mehta were Advocate General Devidas Pangam and public prosecutors Shailendra Bhobe and Pravin Faldessai, while Ponda was supported by advocates Subhash Jadhav and Raunaq Rao.
