The Bombay High Court, Goa Bench on Thursday sentenced former Tehelka Editor-in-Chief Tarun Tejpal to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment after convicting him in the 2013 rape case involving a junior colleague during the THiNK Fest in Goa.
A Division Bench of Justices Dr. Neela Gokhale and Amit S. Jamsandekar imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment for offences under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(k) of the Indian Penal Code, holding that Tejpal, as the victim’s employer and mentor, occupied a position of trust and dominance. The Court also sentenced him to imprisonment under Sections 354, 354A and 354B IPC, while directing that all sentences would run concurrently. It granted him four weeks’ time to surrender before the authorities.
Allowing the State of Goa’s appeal against Tejpal’s acquittal, the High Court came down heavily on the trial court’s appreciation of evidence, holding that it had ignored material evidence and adopted an approach that was legally unsustainable.
“
“The Trial Court fell in error in acquitting the Respondent of the charges levelled against him. The appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court is not only unreasonable but perverse. The conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court are untenable and, in the established facts and circumstances of the case, the view expressed by it is not a possible view.”
The Court criticised of the manner in which the victim was cross-examined during trial. The High Court observed that the proceedings had shifted the focus away from the accused and instead placed the survivor’s personal life under scrutiny.
The Bench noted that the impugned judgment was primarily centred on the victim’s moral character, her conduct before and after the incident, her personal relationships and personality, rather than the allegations against the accused. It further observed that nearly half of the extensive cross-examination consisted of repetitive questioning about intimate details of the alleged assault years after the incident. Expressing concern over the conduct of the trial, the Court remarked:
“
“What struck us most was the Court’s noticeable silence during PW-1’s cross-examination by the defence. We find it surprising that the Court allowed the defence to use this time to harass and humiliate her. It appears the Court overlooked that the victim, having already faced trauma, might feel too ashamed, nervous, or confused to respond clearly when questioned repeatedly in an unfamiliar environment. Her silence or a confused remark could be wrongly interpreted as contradictions in her testimony.”
Rejecting the stereotypical expectations often imposed on survivors of sexual assault, the High Court held that the trial court had erred in assessing the victim’s credibility through the lens of her behaviour rather than the evidence on record.
The High Court held that although the alleged assault occurred inside the hotel lift, which was not covered by CCTV cameras, the available footage corroborated the survivor’s account by showing her and Tejpal entering the lift together, exiting on the second floor and descending via the staircase. It observed that the absence of CCTV footage from inside the lift or the investigating agency’s failure to collect some electronic evidence did not undermine the prosecution’s case. The Bench also noted that the defence failed to explain why Tejpal returned by the staircase instead of proceeding to Robert De Niro’s suite as claimed.
The Court further held that Tejpal exercised control and dominance over the survivor as her Editor-in-Chief and employer, attracting Sections 376(2)(f) and (k) IPC. Rejecting the defence evidence, it found that the witnesses failed to discredit the survivor’s testimony, which remained consistent and trustworthy. The Bench concluded that there was “nothing on record that creates any doubt, disbelief or suspicion about the evidence of the victim,” and held that the trial court had erred in discarding her testimony.
No Evidence of Coerced Apologies or Extortion
The High Court held that the apology emails exchanged between Tejpal, the survivor and Tehelka’s management substantially corroborated the prosecution’s case and were fundamentally inconsistent with his defence of complete denial. It found no evidence to support the contention that the apologies were extracted under pressure from Tehelka’s management or the survivor. The Court observed:
“
“The e-mails clearly admit that the Respondent acknowledged the sexual assault on PW-1, albeit calling it a ‘sexual liaison’. His explanation that these encounters were consensual and taken lightly is unconvincing… If he truly sent the e-mail solely under pressure, why did he also send a formal apology to her, with a copy to PW-45, and then step down as Editor-in-Chief for six months?… No person of reasonable prudence would apologise falsely for such an incident, especially someone like him.”
The Bench also rejected the defence’s allegation that the survivor sought to extort money from Tehelka by demanding an Internal Complaints Committee, compensation and a severance package. It held that the text messages relied upon by the defence had been selectively read out of context and merely reflected the concern and advice of the survivor’s friends and lawyer after she lost her employment. Rejecting the extortion theory, the Court observed:
“
“The text messages only demonstrate her friends’ care and concern for her… She had every right to demand a severance package and compensation. This cannot be construed as an intent to extort… Her only intention, as seen from the material on record, was to ensure that Tehelka establishes an ICC as per the Vishaka Guidelines and inquire into the Respondent’s behaviour.”
Court Rejects Attempt to Discredit Survivor Based on Her Character
The High Court strongly criticised the defence’s attempt to portray the survivor as a woman of “loose morals” by relying on her past relationships, private text messages, photographs and social interactions after the incident. It noted that during the cross-examination, the survivor’s personal life was laid bare in an apparent attempt to shame and humiliate her, with the defence confronting her with years-old messages and photographs to portray her as promiscuous.
Rejecting this line of defence, the Bench held that a woman’s past relationships or lifestyle have no bearing on whether she consented to a sexual act on a particular occasion. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, (1991) 1 SCC 57, the Court reiterated that even a woman alleged to be of “easy virtue” is entitled to privacy, bodily autonomy and equal protection of the law. Her testimony cannot be discarded merely because of allegations regarding her moral character.
“
“Mr Ponda attempted to portray the victim as a woman of loose morals and character. As mentioned above, during the crossexamination, the victim was shamed, and her personal life, including her text messages, e-mails, and photographs from the past few years, was laid bare in public view. She was confronted with text messages exchanged between her and her intimate friends to humiliate and lower her dignity in the Court. Admittedly, the victim appears to be a freespirited woman with little inhibition while interacting with her close friends. She also appears to have had several relationships in the past. Her way of life was magnified to declare her a promiscuous woman and a libertine. 43. It is well settled law that even if a victim is accused of immoral character, it does not give the accused any right to rape her.
The credibility and trustworthiness of a victim’s version are the decisive factors in adjudging the culpability of the accused, not her disposition… the text messages exchanged by PW-1 with her friends cannot be relied upon to depict the victim as a woman of loose moral character, open to sexual assault.”
The Court also rejected the defence’s contention that the survivor’s conduct after the incidents, including remaining at the THiNK Fest, interacting with colleagues, being photographed at social events and travelling with friends, demonstrated that she had not suffered trauma.
The Bench concluded that the defence’s reliance on the survivor’s personal life and post-incident conduct was legally untenable and could not diminish the credibility of her allegations.
The Stereotypes of ‘Perfect Victim’
The High Court rejected the defence’s attempt to discredit the survivor by relying on her conduct before and after the alleged assaults. It held that the trial court had erroneously assessed her credibility through stereotypical notions of how a sexual assault survivor is expected to behave, including questioning why she continued to attend the THiNK Fest, interacted with others, explored job opportunities and delayed making a formal complaint.
The Bench observed that every survivor processes trauma differently and that a victim cannot be expected to abandon her professional responsibilities or conform to a preconceived image of a traumatised person. It held that the survivor’s conduct had to be assessed in the backdrop of the corroborative evidence on record and not through societal stereotypes. The Court observed:
“
“The victim in the present case is a young, educated journalist. She is accomplished in her chosen profession and financially independent. Neither the Court nor the Respondent can decide how she should react or process her trauma. We believe in her plight as a victim who has suffered sexual assault by her superior, whom she has known for many years as her father’s friend, her employer, her mentor, and her friend’s father. She has suffered the uncertainty of losing her job on account of the Respondent’s misconduct.
“Merely because the victim continued to remain at the THiNK Fest venue post the incident does not take away her sexual assault trauma. Many persons deal with trauma in different ways… She need not have abandoned her job, suffered ignominy, or faced isolation on account of the Respondent’s wrongdoings.”
Deciding the Sentence
While deciding the sentence, the Bench acknowledged the lasting consequences of workplace sexual assault on women. It observed that such conduct inflicts enduring damage on careers, isolates survivors through a culture of victim-blaming and institutional resistance, and discourages women from pursuing professional opportunities.
The Court recorded that the victim in the present case was compelled to resign from her employment and suffered profound embarrassment during the trial. At the same time, while considering the quantum of sentence, it took note that the incident had occurred over a decade ago, that Tejpal is now a senior citizen with no allegation of subsequent misconduct after his acquittal, and that both parties had moved on with their lives.
Accordingly, the Court sentenced Tejpal to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(k) IPC, with all sentences to run concurrently. It further directed that the entire amount of fine deposited by him be paid to the survivor as compensation and granted him four weeks to surrender, during which his existing bail bond will continue.
