Survivor's statements are contradictory: Tarun Tejpal to Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court's Goa bench on Thursday began the first day of final hearings in the Goa government's appeal against the acquittal of Tehelka
The Bombay High Court's Goa bench on Thursday began the first day of final hearings in the Goa government's appeal against the acquittal of Tehelka founder Tarun Tejpal in the 2013 sexual assault case, with the journalist maintaining that the survivor's testimonies were "contradictory". Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, appearing for Tejpal, argued that the complainant's statements contained material inconsistencies and challenged the prosecution's version of events by relying on technical evidence, CCTV footage and witness testimonies. Read Full Story The matter is being heard over a three-day final hearing before a division bench of Justices Dr Neela Gokhale and Amit S Jamdar. During the hearing on Thursday, video clips from the hotel lift where the alleged incident took place were played before the bench, with viewing restricted to those present in the courtroom. Ponda argued that the footage and technical evidence did not support the complainant's account and highlighted what he described as inconsistencies between her statements before the investigating officer and her testimony during trial.
The senior advocate specifically focused on three key assertions made in the complainant's initial version of events. According to Ponda, the complainant had alleged that the accused operated the lift by pressing buttons to keep it in a continuous loop, or "circuit", thereby preventing the lift from stopping at any floor and causing the doors to remain shut to trap her inside. He also pointed to what he described as a significant gap before the complainant was immediately cross-examined or fully questioned on these specific claims. Ponda submitted that testimony from the lift expert, hotel security personnel and police witnesses undermined this version of events. Referring to evidence recorded during the trial, he told the court that the lift could not be manipulated in the manner alleged. Quoting the expert's testimony, Ponda said, "When the emergency stop button is pressed, the lift goes to the closest landing or the floor and stops, and the doors open automatically." He further relied on evidence that even if the close-door button was continuously pressed, the doors "will automatically open to the fullest" whenever the lift reached a floor.
He also argued that the complainant's version changed during cross-examination, from alleging that multiple buttons were pressed to later stating that only "a button" was pressed while the accused kept his hand on the panel. Ponda described that scenario as "utterly impossible" in light of the physical acts alleged in the complaint. He further submitted that during the alleged two-minute assault, "the lift had opened at least twice," and pointed to the investigating officer's admission that first-floor footage was missing from the DVR, describing it as the omission of crucial evidence. Ponda also argued that the CCTV footage did not support the allegation that the complainant was pulled back into the lift or that Tejpal followed her after they exited. He submitted that the footage showed Tejpal walking ahead of the complainant after they got out of the lift. The state, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, has consistently argued that the complainant remained a credible witness whose testimony withstood extensive cross-examination and that the trial court wrongly appreciated the evidence while acquitting Tejpal.
The BriefWire