10 years in jail for Tarun Tejpal inadequate, consider life term: Goa to Supreme Court

“He misused his position of authority and trust to commit the offences punishable under Sections 376 (2) (f), 376 (2) (k), 354, 354A, 354B, 341 and 342 of the IPC, while the victim was performing her duties” at an event organised by Tejpal, the state said.

It pointed out that the High Court had “inter alia, relied upon the fact that 13 years had elapsed since the commission of the offences and that both the victim and the respondent had moved on with their lives, while imposing the minimum sentence and directing the sentences to run concurrently”. It said “such reasoning is untenable” and “the passage of time cannot operate to the benefit of the offender or become a premium for the delay in the administration of justice, particularly at the cost of the victim”.

The plea said the sentence “is further disproportionate in view of” the High Court’s “own finding that the victim was subjected to nearly 1,000 pages of invasive cross-examination, during which the defence sought to harass and humiliate her and portray her as a woman of loose morals”.

“These circumstances underscore the gravity of the offence and the trauma suffered by the victim, and warranted a sentence commensurate with the nature and seriousness of the crimes committed,” it said.

The state said while it is not seeking to reopen or challenge the conviction, the sentence “does not adequately reflect the gravity of the offences or the aggravating circumstances found proved by the High Court”.

It pointed out that the High Court itself had found that Tejpal occupied a position of “dominance, control, trust and authority” over 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, particularly where the delay has not been shown to be attributable to the victim,” it said.

The fact that Tejpal has a wife and two adult daughters or that he has not been accused of committing any other offence after the incident “cannot outweigh the gravity of the offences for which he now stands convicted,” the state said.

The direction that the sentences should run concurrently “further substantially reduces the effective punishment for two distinct aggravated sexual assaults committed on two successive days. Each incident constituted separate criminality and deserves to be reflected in the sentence,” the state said.