Two days after the Goa government moved the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal’s 10-year jail term to life imprisonment, Tejpal on Thursday approached the top court challenging his conviction and sentence in the 2013 rape case involving a junior colleague.
Tejpal’s petition, filed on Thursday morning, assails the August 6 judgment of the Bombay High Court at Goa which overturned his acquittal by the trial court and convicted him of two counts of aggravated rape. He is also challenging the 10-year sentence imposed by the High Court.
The plea is likely to be mentioned for urgent listing as Tejpal is required to surrender in the first week of September following the high court’s direction.
Tejpal’s appeal, while denying the allegations, questions the circumstances surrounding the complaint and the conduct of the complainant after the alleged incidents. It seeks to build a case that the prosecution allegations were fabricated.
The appeal also raises questions about the circumstances in which the allegations emerged and contends that the case against him was the result of political and institutional pressures.
The challenge comes as the Supreme Court is set to potentially deal with cross appeals on both conviction and sentence -- Tejpal seeking to have his conviction overturned and the Goa government seeking a life term.
{{/usCountry}}The challenge comes as the Supreme Court is set to potentially deal with cross appeals on both conviction and sentence -- Tejpal seeking to have his conviction overturned and the Goa government seeking a life term.
{{/usCountry}}The Goa government had on Tuesday filed its special leave petition seeking enhancement of the sentence from 10 years to life imprisonment, arguing that the punishment imposed by the High Court was “grossly disproportionate” to the gravity of the offences.
The state has not challenged Tejpal’s conviction, but has contended that the high court failed to adequately account for a series of aggravating circumstances that it itself had recorded while convicting him.
The government has also challenged the direction that the sentences for the two aggravated rape offences run concurrently. It has argued that the two alleged assaults took place on successive days and constituted separate criminality warranting a cumulative sentence.
Tejpal’s appeal, on the other hand, seeks to reopen the high court’s findings that led to his conviction.
The case relates to the alleged sexual assault of a junior female colleague during the Tehelka THiNK festival in Goa in November 2013. According to the prosecution case accepted by the High Court, the first incident took place on November 7, when Tejpal took the woman to a lift at the Grand Hyatt hotel while they were proceeding towards a room occupied by Hollywood actor Robert De Niro.
The prosecution alleged that Tejpal sexually assaulted her in the lift despite her objections. The following day, he allegedly again took her to the lift on the pretext of retrieving an article from De Niro’s room and assaulted her again.
Tejpal has consistently denied the allegations.
The high court, while convicting him, found that he occupied a position of “dominance, control, trust and authority” over the woman, being her employer and mentor as well as a friend of her father and father of her close friend. It overturned the trial court’s 2021 acquittal, holding that the lower court’s appreciation of the evidence was “not only unreasonable but perverse” and that it had relied on preconceived notions and irrelevant considerations while assessing the survivor’s testimony. The high court also rejected the trial court’s approach of scrutinising the woman’s conduct against stereotypical expectations of how a rape survivor should react, resist or behave following an assault.
The high court had imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5 lakh for each of the two aggravated rape offences, apart from separate sentences for sexual harassment, assault with intent to disrobe and wrongful confinement. The sentences were directed to run concurrently, making 10 years the effective jail term.
The Goa government, in its appeal, has argued that the high court’s finding of guilt warranted a substantially higher sentence. The state has relied on the fact that Tejpal was in a position of authority over the complainant and that the alleged assaults were repeated on successive days. It has also pointed to the manner in which the survivor was subjected to extensive cross-examination during the trial, saying she was subjected to nearly 1,000 pages of questioning about her personal relationships and sexual history.
The state added that the passage of nearly 13 years since the offences cannot be treated as a mitigating circumstance, particularly when the delay was not attributable to the survivor. It has also challenged the High Court’s reliance on Tejpal’s age, family circumstances and the absence of subsequent allegations of misconduct in determining the sentence.