The Supreme Court on Friday refused to suspend the 10-year sentence passed by the Goa bench of the Bombay high court to journalist Tarun Tejpal in a 2013 rape case.
The court agreed to hear his appeal challenging the Bombay HC order passed in August convicting him in the 2013 incident. It was pointed out that the incident took place on November 7, 2013, while the FIR was registered only on November 22. Sibal pointed out that the victim alleged she was sexually assaulted inside the lift which could not be proved by CCTV footage nor by technical experts who suggest the lift opens at every floor, meaning such an incident could not have occurred within the short span of 2 minutes and 9 seconds before the lift would open again.
Sibal said that the incident took place when Tejpal was the editor of Tehelka magazine and the victim was an employee.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Goa government rebutted Tejpal’s arguments by showing the court messages exchanged between the accused and the victim in which he apologised to the victim. He pointed out that the high court took note of this fact and commented on the manner of the trial in this case. He was prosecuted under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including provisions relating to rape and assault or criminal force against a woman. the high court relied on the victim’s testimony and accompanying evidence While overturning the acquittal.
The trial court gave a clean chit to the 63-year old journalist in 2021.
During the hearing, senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Agarwal representing Tejpal sought to demolish the prosecution story by projecting the victim’s story of alleged rape to be “false”. Mehta said that besides the employer-employee relationship, the victim was the daughter of the accused’s friend and was also friends with Tejpal’s daughter. The court noted this fact and said, “So according to you, there was no motive for the victim to implicate the accused. Mehta said that the trial court conducted the proceedings in a manner that put the victim on trial where she was asked all sorts of uncomfortable questions. However, the high court termed the trial court’s judgment “perverse”.
