NEW DELHI: The Bombay high court on Thursday convicted former Tehelka editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal in the 2013 rape case filed by his former junior colleague, overturning his acquittal by a Goa trial court.The verdict came nearly 13 years after the alleged incident during the ThinkFest event in Goa, where Tejpal was accused of sexually assaulting a junior colleague inside a hotel elevator. The high court had reserved its judgment last week after hearing arguments from both sides.The Goa government had challenged Tejpal’s acquittal after a sessions court cleared him of all charges in May 2021. The appeal was heard by Justices Dr Neela Gokhale and Amit Jamsandekar of the Bombay high court’s Goa bench, which had directed Tejpal to remain present for the pronouncement of the verdict.Appearing for the Goa government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had argued that the trial court committed a serious error by evaluating the complainant’s conduct based on preconceived notions of how a survivor of sexual assault should behave.He submitted that there is no universal standard governing the reaction of a sexual assault survivor, as responses vary depending on an individual’s education, personality, social background and circumstances.Mehta also argued that the trial court placed undue emphasis on minor inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements instead of examining whether her core allegations remained consistent.Referring to an email sent by Tejpal to the complainant after the alleged incident, the Solicitor General argued that the accused had apologised for his “lapse of judgment”, expressed shame and stated that he believed the encounter had been consensual. According to the prosecution, those statements amounted to an admission that an encounter had taken place.The defence, led by senior advocate Abad Ponda, argued that the prosecution had misread the apology emails as admissions of a sexual encounter.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
Ponda submitted that none of the emails contained any admission of a consensual physical or sexual encounter and that the references related only to a consensual verbal conversation of a sexual nature.The defence also questioned the complainant’s credibility, arguing that her conduct before and after the alleged incident, along with emails, WhatsApp messages and documentary evidence, contradicted the prosecution’s case.The high court’s conviction reverses the trial court’s acquittal, with sentencing to be decided after hearing arguments on the quantum of punishment.
