Goa govt moves Supreme Court, seeks life imprisonment for Tarun Tejpal in 2013 rape case

Tarun Tejpal had earlier called his conviction "wrong", saying that he will appeal against the order in the Supreme Court.

The Goa government on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal’s 10-year jail term to life imprisonment, contending that the minimum sentence imposed by the Bombay High Court was “grossly disproportionate” to the gravity of the aggravated rape offences committed by him against a junior colleague.

After his sentencing on August 6, former Tehelka magazine editor Tarun Tejpal said he would approach the Supreme Court. (ANI Video Grab)

In its special leave petition filed against the August 6 judgment convicting 63-year-old Tejpal, the state also challenged the decision to make the sentences for the two aggravated rape convictions run concurrently, arguing that the two sexual assaults took place on successive days and represented “separate criminality” that ought to be reflected in the punishment.

The state government, however, clarified that its challenge before the Supreme Court was confined to the quantum of sentence and the direction that the sentences run concurrently.

The petition argues that the high court recorded several aggravating circumstances which, according to the state, warranted a sentence higher than the statutory minimum of 10 years.

These include Tejpal’s position as the victim’s employer, mentor and a friend of her father, as well as the fact that he was the father of her close friend. The high court had found that he occupied a position of “dominance, control, trust and authority” over the woman.

“The sentence imposed is grossly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offences committed by the Respondent,” the government has told the Supreme Court, seeking enhancement to life imprisonment or such other enhanced sentence as the court may deem appropriate.

The government has particularly questioned the high court’s reliance on the passage of nearly 13 years since the offences to impose the minimum sentence. The high court had also taken into account Tejpal’s age, family circumstances and the absence of any subsequent misconduct, besides observing that both he and the victim had moved on with their lives.

The Goa government has argued that the passage of time cannot become a benefit for an offender or a “premium” for delay in the administration of justice, particularly when the delay was not attributable to the victim.

“The delay taken for the victim to get justice cannot become a mitigating circumstance in favour of an offender so as to dilute the sentence for a grave sexual offence,” the state said.

It has also argued that Tejpal’s family circumstances, including the fact that he has a wife and two adult daughters, and the absence of any subsequent allegation of misconduct, cannot outweigh the gravity of the offences for which he now stands convicted.

Survivor ‘humiliated’ in court during trial

The state government has relied heavily on the manner in which the survivor was treated during the trial as an additional aggravating circumstance. The high court had recorded that she was subjected to nearly 1,000 pages of invasive cross-examination, including questions concerning her personal relationships and sexual history.

According to the SLP, the defence used the cross-examination to “harass and humiliate” the victim and portray her as an unchaste woman. The state said this conduct, coupled with the repeated assaults and abuse of Tejpal’s position of authority, warranted the maximum sentence.

The petition also points out that the trial court, while acquitting Tejpal in 2021, had made adverse findings concerning the survivor’s character and assessed her conduct against stereotypical notions of how a rape victim ought to behave. It further alleges that the trial court had disclosed the identity of the survivor in violation of law.

The high court, while reversing the acquittal, found that the trial court’s appreciation of evidence was “not only unreasonable but perverse” and had relied on preconceived notions and irrelevant material while assessing the survivor’s testimony.

The state government has told the Supreme Court that the high court’s own findings show that Tejpal abused the position of trust and authority he exercised over the victim.

The 2013 assault

According to the SLP, the first assault took place on November 7, 2013, when Tejpal asked the woman to accompany him to the room of Hollywood actor Robert De Niro at the Grand Hyatt in Goa during the Tehelka THiNK festival. The state said she followed him because he was her employer and superior whom she trusted, and that he sexually assaulted her in the lift despite her protests.

The following day, the state alleged, Tejpal again asked her to accompany him to De Niro’s room on the pretext of retrieving an article and sexually assaulted her in the lift.

The Goa government has argued that the alleged repetition of the assault on the very next day demonstrated “a complete absence of remorse” and was a significant aggravating circumstance.

It has also stressed that the victim was professionally dependent on Tejpal and was compelled to resign from her employment, with the High Court recording the enduring consequences that workplace sexual harassment can have on a woman’s career.

The government has asked the Supreme Court to enhance the punishment to life imprisonment, contending that the minimum sentence fails to adequately reflect the aggravating circumstances established on the record.

The petition also invoked the need for deterrence against abuse of authority in workplaces, arguing that a deterrent sentence was necessary to ensure that victims of sexual assault are not themselves treated as persons on trial.

The high court found the survivor’s testimony truthful and held that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt. It also rejected the trial court’s approach of judging the survivor’s conduct against stereotypical expectations, observing that the lower court had relied on assumptions about how an “ideal” victim should physically resist or emotionally react.

Tejpal, who has denied the allegations, said after the high court verdict that he would challenge his conviction before the Supreme Court and that he was being politically targeted because of his journalism. “We are going to appeal against the verdict. We are very disappointed. We believe the evidence in the case has not been appreciated. We believe there is enough evidence to very clearly exonerate me,” he said on August 6.