Bombay High Court Sentences Tarun Tejpal to 10 Years in Jail for Aggravated Rape and Sexual Harassment

Underlining that notions of a perfect victim are a myth and neither the Court nor the Respondent can decide how she should react or process her trauma, the Bombay High Court in Goa overturned the trial court ruling that acquitted journalist and Tehelka’s former editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal on Thursday and sentenced him to ten years in jail. “The trial court proceeded on a notion that a victim of sexual assault must behave in a stereotypical manner,” the HC said, convicting Tejpal on charges of aggravated rape, sexual harassment and use of criminal force against a woman. A Bench of Justices Amit S Jamsandekar and Neela Gokhale awarded him the mandatory minimum sentence of ten years for aggravated rape, since his conviction falls under two specific categories under the rape offence: first, for being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman; and second, for being in a position of control or dominance over a woman. These provisions carry a sentence of not less than ten years and may extend to imprisonment for life. Tejpal, in court, had sought leniency in sentencing, citing his age. While addressing the Bench after the conviction, Tejpal said, “I am 62, and I believe I am a victim. I have a wife. There’s not much else to say. All that I can say is we can go and appeal. Please be lenient with me.” A woman journalist had accused Tejpal of sexually assaulting her in a hotel elevator on November 7 and November 8, 2013. In 2021, a sessions court in Goa acquitted Tejpal, saying the complainant “did not demonstrate any kind of normative behaviour” a victim of sexual assault “might plausibly show”. The High Court, however, said, “The PW-1 (woman) was to be a perfect victim and only then could the Courts believe her story of woe. The ‘perfect victim’ concept, more formally known as an ‘ideal victim’, describes an unspoken cultural archetype where a person is fully believed, sympathised with and granted legitimacy only if they exhibit absolute vulnerability, complete innocence and total passivity.” The sessions court had said the woman’s messages to the accused established that she was “neither traumatised nor terrified” and that this “completely belies” the prosecution’s case. The Goa government had challenged the acquittal in the High Court. During the hearings before the High Court, the state argued that the manner in which the trial court dealt with the case was “perturbing”. The state said the lower court virtually laid down guidelines on how the victim “should” respond in such circumstances, calling it a “classic case of perverse findings”. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state of Goa, argued that the trial court had virtually put the complainant on trial. He told the court that “embarrassing” questions put to the complainant during her cross-examination – concerning whether it is immoral to have consensual sex, consume alcohol or smoke cigarettes voluntarily, or whether she had conversations containing “sexual overtones” with friends – should not have been asked or taken into consideration by the trial court. Mehta referred to an email from Tejpal to the complainant after the alleged incident in which he apologised for his lapse of judgment and expressed shame, arguing that such statements amounted to an admission that an encounter took place. Opposing the state’s plea, Tejpal’s counsel, Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, claimed contradictions in the complainant’s version of events. Relying on CCTV footage, the defence argued that the surveillance footage did not support her allegations that Tejpal pulled the complainant into the lift or forcibly dragged her back into it. The defence argued that the complainant’s “conduct” after the alleged assault was inconsistent with the prosecution’s case that she was traumatised and fearful. Citing WhatsApp chats, CCTV footage, emails, witness testimony and other material placed on record during the trial, the defence counsel argued that the complainant continued to attend events and social gatherings and, after the alleged incidents, visited Hollywood actor Robert De Niro’s hotel suite at night, and that her “movements” in the week after the alleged assault were “far from constrained”. The defence argued that the prosecution had misinterpreted Tejpal’s apology emails as an admission of a sexual encounter. None of the apology emails contained any admission of a consensual physical or sexual encounter and only referred to a consensual verbal conversation of a sexual nature, the defence said.