How Bombay High Court picked apart trial court’s acquittal of Tarun Tejpal

The case

The allegations date back to November 2013, when Tejpal allegedly assaulted the survivor on two separate occasions inside the lift of a hotel in Goa while the two were alone. She confided in colleagues the same night and, a week later, emailed a complaint to Tehelka’s managing editor seeking an apology and an internal inquiry.

Tejpal responded with two apology emails before the matter became public and an FIR was registered. He was tried on charges including ‘rape by a person in a position of trust and dominance’ (Sections 376(2)(f) and (k) of the Indian Penal Code), along with assault, sexual harassment, wrongful restraint and confinement. In May 2021, Additional Sessions Judge Kshama Joshi at Mapusa acquitted him on every count, prompting an appeal by the Goa government in the High Court.

Why the trial court acquitted him

The trial court’s acquittal hinged less on the core facts than on the trial court’s reading of the survivor’s conduct and character.

Her “behaviour” after the incident — continuing her duties, appearing composed in photographs, being seen holding a wine glass and confiding first in male colleagues rather than her female roommate — were seen as “inconsistent with genuine trauma”.

The trial files contained a 1,000-page record of the extensive, largely unchallenged cross-examination into the survivor’s sexual history and past relationships.

The trial court also treated Tejpal’s apology emails as “coerced” and, therefore, inadmissible rather than as admissions. Essentially, the court read inconsistencies in testimony recorded five years after the event as material contradictions.

A high bar for reversing an acquittal

Courts hearing an appeal against acquittal start from what this judgment calls a “double presumption” of innocence: the ordinary presumption of innocence for every accused and one that is reinforced by the trial court’s findings.

The High Court’s powers are to be exercised in rare circumstances, generally reserved for perversity or a clear misreading of evidence. The bench held that this case met that high bar — the trial court’s findings were, it said, “directly contrary to the evidence on record” and were shaped by assumptions about how a genuine victim ought to behave rather than by the record itself.

Here are some of the key aspects on which the HC reversed the trial court’s stand.

The myth of the ‘perfect’ victim

The defence argued that the survivor’s composure at the festival, later photographs and talk of a severance package showed no genuine trauma. It even alleged that she attempted an extortion.

The High Court rejected this, criticising the trial court for expecting an “ideal victim”, holding that an employee who lost her job over her employer’s misconduct was entitled to seek compensation without that being read as extortion.

“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 High Court said.

“Expecting a survivor to be constantly miserable, meek or visibly broken, the Trial Court has ignored the reality of human coping mechanisms. However, these concepts of a perfect victim are a myth. Credibility must be evaluated on facts, not on whether a survivor fits a narrow cultural mould,” the court added.

Putting the complainant on trial

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state of Goa, argued that the cross-examination put “the victim and not the respondent… on trial”.
He told the court that “embarrassing” questions were put to the complainant during her cross-examination — whether it is immoral to have consensual sex, consume alcohol or smoke cigarettes voluntarily, or whether she had conversations containing “sexual overtones” with friends.

The High Court criticised the trial court for permitting the “invasive, humiliating cross-examination into the victim’s past sexual history, moral views, and personal WhatsApp messages…”

It said this directly violates statutory embargoes that prohibit questioning a victim’s character or past relationships.

“The trial court appears to be influenced by extraneous, inadmissible material and testimony, including graphic details of the victim’s past sexual history, which are prohibited by law, and used them to censure her character and discredit her evidence,” it said.

Tarun Tejpal speaks to the media after being convicted. ANI

A ‘sterling’ witness

The reversal turns largely on how the two courts read the complainant’s testimony. The trial court treated inconsistencies as fatal contradictions. The High Court instead found her account consistent, “sterling” and corroborated by seven witnesses, including two colleagues she confided to within hours of the incident, her mother, and the man she later married.

All their testimonies, including cross examinations “remained unshaken,” as per the High Court’s findings. The court also cited Section 114A of the Evidence Act, which requires courts to presume absence of consent once a woman testifies to it in prosecutions under these sections, a presumption it said the trial court never applied.

“In the present case, the victim has stood firm in her testimony despite invasive cross-examination. As many as seven witnesses have corroborated her narration. We have no hesitation in believing her testimony,” the High Court said.

‘Gaps’ in the survivor’s statement

A key defence argument was about the mechanics of how the survivor recounted the events. Her statement that the accused manipulated the lift door was rebutted, arguing that the lift doors could not physically be held shut, making the assault as described, impossible.

The High Court examined testimony from the hotel’s security manager and a lift technician and found doors could indeed be kept closed by holding the “close” button, undercutting the defense claim.

CCTV footage, which does not cover the lift’s interior, still placed both Tejpal and the complainant entering and exiting it at the times she described, with her seen adjusting her clothing immediately after.

The apology emails

Two emails Tejpal sent apologising for a “shameful lapse of judgment” and a “sexual liaison” pursued despite the survivor’s reluctance proved central to the High Court’s decision. The trial court had accepted that these were extracted under pressure from Tehelka’s leadership. The High Court disagreed, finding no evidence of coercion and calling it implausible that an innocent man would apologise twice in writing, copy the magazine’s leadership, and step down as editor for six months.

“An insensitive and unresponsive work environment often instills fear in women about venturing out of their homes to pursue meaningful opportunities…” the court said. “The victim in the present matter also suffered similar consequences. She was compelled to resign. She also suffered profound embarrassment.”