Bombay High Court to deliver verdict on Goa Government’s appeal in Tarun Tejpal case
The Bombay High Court's Goa bench is scheduled to pronounce its verdict on Thursday, August 6, morning on the Goa government's appeal challenging the acquittal of former Tehelka editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal in the 2013 sexual assault case.
A bench comprising Justices Dr Neela Gokhale and Amit Jamsandekar has directed Tejpal to remain present in court when the judgment is delivered.
The case stems from allegations by a former junior colleague that Tejpal sexually assaulted her inside a hotel elevator during the ThinkFest event in Goa in November 2013. After a trial court acquitted him, the Goa government challenged the verdict before the High Court.
The High Court reserved its judgment last week after hearing arguments from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Goa government, and senior advocate Abad Ponda, representing Tejpal.
During the hearing, Mehta argued that the trial court erred 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 for a survivor's response, as reactions vary depending on an individual's personality, education, social background and circumstances.
The Solicitor General also contended that the trial court placed undue emphasis on minor inconsistencies in the complainant's statements instead of assessing whether her core allegations remained consistent.
Referring to an email sent by Tejpal to the complainant after the alleged incident, Mehta argued that the former editor had apologised for his "lapse of judgment", expressed shame and stated that he believed the encounter had been consensual. According to the prosecution, these statements amounted to an admission that an encounter had taken place.
The defence, however, argued that the prosecution had misinterpreted Tejpal's apology emails. Senior advocate Abad Ponda submitted that the emails did not contain any admission of a physical or sexual encounter and referred only to what he described as 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 other documentary records, contradicted the prosecution's case.
It further contended that the complainant's account of being confined inside a moving elevator was inconsistent with expert evidence and CCTV footage.
