Underlining that notions of a perfect victim are a myth and neither the Court nor the Respondent can decide how she should react or process her trauma, the High Court of Bombay at Goa overturned the trial court ruling that acquitted journalist and Tehelka’s former editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal on Thursday and sentenced him to ten years in jail.
“The trial court proceeded on a notion that a victim of sexual assault must behave in a stereotypical manner,” the High Court said, convicting Tejpal on charges of aggravated rape, sexual harassment and use of criminal force against a woman.
A Bench of Justices Amit S Jamsandekar and Neela Gokhale awarded him the mandatory minimum sentence of ten years for aggravated rape, since his conviction falls under two specific categories under the rape offence: first, for being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman; and second, for being in a position of control or dominance over a woman.
These provisions carry a sentence of not less than ten years and may extend to imprisonment for life. Tejpal sought leniency in sentencing, citing his age. While addressing the Bench after the conviction, he said, “I am 62, and I believe I am a political victim. I have a wife and two daughters. There’s not much else to say. All that I can say is we can go and appeal. Please be lenient with me.” The High Court has granted him four weeks’ time to surrender.
A woman journalist had accused Tejpal of sexually assaulting her in a hotel elevator on November 7 and November 8, 2013. In 2021, a sessions court in Goa acquitted Tejpal, saying the complainant “did not demonstrate any kind of normative behaviour” a victim of sexual assault “might plausibly show”.
The High Court, however, said, “The PW-1 (woman) was to be a perfect victim and only then could the Courts believe her story of woe. 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. When a survivor does not fit in this mould – such as delaying a report, knowing the attacker or being under the influence of alcohol – their trauma is normally devalued.”
The sessions court had said the woman’s messages to the accused established that she was “neither traumatised nor terrified” and that this “completely belies” the prosecution’s case. The Goa government had challenged the acquittal in the High Court.
Story continues below this ad
The High Court said the trial court ignored the reality of human coping mechanisms by expecting a survivor to be constantly miserable, meek or visibly broken. “We believe in her plight as a victim who has suffered sexual assault by her superior, whom she has known for many years…,” the High Court said.
Noting that the appreciation of evidence by the trial court is “not only unreasonable but perverse”, the High Court criticised the trial court for permitting an “invasive, humiliating cross-examination into the victim’s past sexual history, moral views, and personal WhatsApp messages, directly violating 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,” the High Court said.
The High Court said the trial court also erred in observing that there was no whisper of admission of sexual assault or any of its attributes in Tejpal’s apology emails. “The apology emails, in fact, clearly relate to an ‘encounter’, ‘sexual liaison’ and ‘furtive acts’, in respect of which the Respondent issued two apologies – one formal and the other personal. Without any substantive material, the trial court has believed the apologies to be given under pressure,” the High Court said.
Story continues below this ad
In the judgment, the High Court said the complainant suffered profound embarrassment during the trial. “Sexual harassment at work causes significant and enduring harm to women’s career paths, punishing them for factors outside their control. Additionally, a widespread culture of victim blaming and institutional resistance isolates survivors, prompting them to switch jobs or accept demotions. An insensitive and unresponsive work environment often instils fear in women about venturing out of their homes to pursue meaningful opportunities, thereby preventing them from fully utilising their talents and skills. The victim in the present matter also suffered similar consequences. She was compelled to resign,” the High Court said.
The High Court found the complainant’s testimony to be “sterling” and reliable. “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.
During the hearings before the High Court, the state argued that the manner in which the trial court dealt with the case was “perturbing”.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for the state of Goa, argued that the trial court had virtually put the complainant on trial. He told the court that “embarrassing” questions put to the complainant during her cross-examination – concerning whether it is immoral to have consensual sex, consume alcohol or smoke cigarettes voluntarily, or whether she had conversations containing “sexual overtones” with friends – should not have been asked or taken into consideration by the trial court.
Story continues below this ad
Mehta referred to an email from Tejpal to the complainant after the alleged incident in which he apologised for his lapse of judgment and expressed shame, arguing that such statements amounted to an admission that an encounter took place.
Opposing the state’s plea, Tejpal’s counsel, Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, claimed contradictions in the complainant’s version of events. Relying on CCTV footage, the defence argued that the surveillance footage did not support her allegations that Tejpal pulled the complainant into the lift or forcibly dragged her back into it.
The defence argued that the complainant’s “conduct” after the alleged assault was inconsistent with the prosecution’s case that she was traumatised and fearful. Citing WhatsApp chats, CCTV footage, emails, witness testimony and other material placed on record during the trial, the defence counsel argued that the complainant continued to attend events and social gatherings and, after the alleged incidents, visited Hollywood actor Robert De Niro’s hotel suite at night, and that her “movements” in the week after the alleged assault were “far from constrained”.
The defence argued that the prosecution had misinterpreted Tejpal’s apology emails, and referred to them as “extrajudicial confessions”, asserting they were made under duress.
Story continues below this ad
The High Court, however, said it found no evidence to suggest that the apologies were coerced. “He claims he never met PW-1 before she joined Tehelka and considers her just one of many staff members handling minor tasks. Yet he issued two emails admitting guilt and offering apologies, which is inconsistent with his denial… No person of reasonable prudence would apologise falsely for such an incident, especially someone like him,” the High Court said.
