Tarun Tejpal's rape acquittal order perverse, untenable: HC rebukes trial court
The Bombay High Court has held that the trial court’s acquittal of former Tehelka editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal in a 2013 rape case was "perverse", "untenable"
The Bombay High Court has held that the trial court’s acquittal of former Tehelka editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal in a 2013 rape case was "perverse", "untenable" and based on an unreasonable appreciation of evidence, saying the prosecution had proved its case beyond every reasonable doubt. The court's remarks come while sentencing Tejpal to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and setting aside the 2021 judgment of the trial court that had acquitted him. The High Court has directed Tejpal to surrender before Goa Police within four weeks. Read Full Story The case stems from accusations by a Tarun Tejpal's former junior colleague that the veteran journalist sexually assaulted her inside a hotel elevator during the ThinkFest event in Goa in November 2013. WHAT BOMBAY HC SAID WHILE OVERTURNING ACQUITTAL The Trial Court's findings are directly contrary to the evidence on record and thus per se perverse.
The Trial Court's evaluation of the victim's testimony and evidence exhibits multiple fatal flaws, largely stemming from preconceived notions and reliance on irrelevant or inadmissible material. The Trial Court drew unfounded negative inferences regarding her lack of visible physical injuries, her physical response, or her failure to lower her chin to avoid being forcibly kissed or to scratch her attacker. In doing so, the Court relied on stereotypical assumptions about how an "ideal" victim should physically resist or emotionally react, going so far as to hold her smiling demeanour during subsequent work events against her. The Trial Court has also erred in observing that there was no whisper of admission of sexual assault or any of its attributes in the apology e-mails. The apology e-mails, in fact, clearly relate to an 'encounter', 'sexual liaison' and 'furtive acts', in respect of which the Respondent issued two apologies – one formal and the other personal.
Most glaringly, the Court permitted an invasive, humiliating cross-examination into the victim's past sexual history, moral views, and personal WhatsApp messages... The Trial Court appears to be influenced by extraneous, inadmissible material and testimony, including graphic details of the victim's past sexual history... The Court incorrectly drew adverse inferences from the victim consulting an NGO and legal counsel, treating it as a potential fabrication... The Trial Court failed to appreciate that the victim, a young professional woman, was pitted against the might of the Respondent and his organisation. We find that the victim has made truthful statements, and the prosecution has established the case against the Respondent beyond every reasonable doubt. 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 BriefWire