Goa HC allows framing of charges in Tarun Tejpal rape case on Sep 28

Senior counsel from New Delhi Aman Lekhi, appearing for Tejpal, argued the fight is “asymmetrical”, and made a case that the “state has aligned with the victim”, while the reputation of the accused is being systematically destroyed. Lekhi through his arguments maintained the matter doesn’t stand fit to trial, and Tejpal should be relieved from undergoing the “trauma of a trial”, as there is “no sufficient ground to proceed” and the accusations made against the petitioner (Tejpal) is fully without foundation”. Also Read: Goa court nod for in-camera trial in rape case against Tarun Tejpal

“This is not a paradigm case of rape. When we speak of rape, an idea comes into our mind, it’s of a hapless female against a predatory, dominant male. Because, the general consensus of rape is its such an offence, the person against whom the accusation is made, starts with a defensive stand. Because, there is no other way for him to contest what has been alleged against him. Here, it’s is a peculiar scenario— as far as the fight is concerned, it’s asymmetrical. The person has no means to actually contest and show that the acquisition is false,” Lekhi argued.

In their arguments — where Lekhi also pointed that section 376 (rape) today is often misused across the country, he went into a narrative on the nature of the accused as he told the court, “This is not the case of a predatory male. This is not a case of misogynistic, predatory male imposing himself on a woman, this is not that case. This is not the usual case of rape and whatever allegations have been made, justice warrants balance, harmony. Harmony between the rights of the victim as contained in the complaint, and the interest of the accused against whom the allegation has been made. But what has happened, the balance is non-existent and tilts completely in favour of the lady, ignoring the legitimate right and interest of the male.”

During the course of the arguments, while the prosecution alleged the defence having deployed “delay tactics”, it was Tejpal’s case that he was denied the CCTV footage and other evidence to fight the allegation “even after repeated applications of request”. The incident of rape – on two occasions – are alleged to have taken place inside a lift of the hotel. Lekhi, who spoke to the media outside the court, said it was following the Supreme Court order that the state agreed to share the footage, and other evidences which now will help Tejpal present his side.

The defence further stressed that the trial cannot begin till the high court examines the “movement of the victim” just before she entered the lift and her body language after she exits the lift on both occasions.​ They argued that the ​CCTV footage shows that the victim didn’t seem distressed.

The CCTV footage, which the police chargesheeted as evidence to substantiate the witness’s statement, is now being used as an evidence in Tejpal’s favour, as Lekhi summarised, “That footage falsifies the statement of the complaint. And nothing would have been simpler, than just look at the CCTV footage and test the statement of the victim in that context. And unfortunately despite the existence of the CCTV, there is no examination or application of mind to the inconsistency between the footage and the statement. Our stand is if the CCTV falsifies her case, then we cannot stand trial.” Through the high court arguments — the defence repeated, “the lower court has abdicated its jurisdiction. And as we can see, there is blatant illegality and impropriety in the disposal of the case”.

“We are on a notice before the court. Charge will be framed, there is a mandate under the law that it should be completed within a stipulated time, here is a direction of the apex court that it should be concluded. It was earlier meant to be concluded in 8 months or earlier. We have now at least three years in this. There is no justification for stay of order,” argued Public Prosecutor S Lotlikar.

The Goa Police has booked Tejpal in multiple charges, including 354-A (sexual harrassment and punishment for sexual harassment), 376 (rape), 376(2)(k) IPC (rape of a woman by a person being in position of control or dominance over the woman, along with sections 341 and 342 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 376 (2) (f) (person in position of trust or authority over women, committing rape of such women) and 376C IPC (sexual intercourse by person in authority) and Section 354 IPC.