'Perverse, Unreliable': Bombay HC Rebukes Trial Court Verdict In Tarun Tejpal Case

Published 6 August 2026 · india

News india 'Perverse, Unreliable': Bombay HC Rebukes Trial Court Verdict In Tarun Tejpal Case 'Perverse, Unreliable': Bombay HC Rebukes Trial Court Verdict In Tarun Tejpal

News india 'Perverse, Unreliable': Bombay HC Rebukes Trial Court Verdict In Tarun Tejpal Case 'Perverse, Unreliable': Bombay HC Rebukes Trial Court Verdict In Tarun Tejpal Case Published By, Last Updated: August 06, 2026, 16:28 IST Bombay HC overturned Tarun Tejpal's acquittal, convicting him in the 2013 sexual assault case. The court found the trial court focused on the survivor's character, not evidence. Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal. (Photo: AFP) While overturning Tarun Tejpal’s acquittal and convicting him in the 2013 sexual assault case, the Bombay High Court said the trial court had focused more on the survivor’s character and personal life than on the evidence in the case. The High Court observed that the acquittal judgment “primarily centred on PW-1’s moral character, her behaviour before and after the incidents, her open interactions with friends, and her overall personality." The High Court was critical of the manner in which the survivor was cross-examined during the trial. It noted that a detailed review of her testimony showed the defence repeatedly questioned her personal life, past relationships, social media posts and behaviour after the alleged assault, as if she, and not the accused, was on trial.

The Bench also noted that nearly half of her almost 1,000-page cross-examination consisted of repetitive questions about intimate details of the alleged assault. The Bench further remarked, “What struck us most was the Court’s noticeable silence during PW-1’s cross-examination by the defence." It added that it found it surprising that the trial court allowed the defence to use the cross-examination “to harass and humiliate her." HC Says Trial Court Wrongly Treated Minor Omissions As Contradictions The High Court also disagreed with the trial court’s reasons for rejecting the survivor’s testimony. It said the trial court wrongly treated minor omissions and clarifications as “material contradictions". These included questioning why the survivor did not answer whether she had lifted her legs during the assault and treating the absence of this detail in an email sent on November 16, 2013, and in her statement under Section 161 of the CrPC as an improvement in her testimony. The Bench further noted that the trial court had wrongly considered the survivor’s testimony unreliable because she had not initially mentioned every part of her body the respondent allegedly touched, or recorded in her summary of recollection that he forcibly kissed her and put his tongue in her vagina.