New Delhi: The abuse of dominance, failure of the trial court to appreciate ‘sterling quality’ evidence and its unlawful focus on the ‘perfect victim’ moral character emerged as the key reasons for the Bombay High Court to overturn the acquittal of Tehelka founder Tarun Tejpal.
Even though the Goa government pushed for the maximum punishment of life sentence, the court took note of how the incident took place 13 years ago, that Tejpal is a senior citizen with a family, and that there is no report of any misconduct against him or an allegation of having committed any offence post the acquittal order.
Consequently, the HC’s Goa bench sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
For now, the decision—coming 13 years after a female colleague levelled rape and sexual assault charges against Tejpal at the magazine’s annual festival THiNK Fest in Goa—concludes one of the closely-watched trials, especially after a trial court acquitted him in 2021 and the BJP government challenged it in 2022.
Ordered to surrender within 2 weeks, Tejpal has stated his decision to appeal in a higher court of law.
Pronouncing the trial court’s order as “per se perverse” (contrary to what is right, reasonable, or expected), Justices Neela Gokhale and Amit S. Jamsandekar said that the trial court’s conclusions were ‘untenable and directly contrary to the evidence on record’.
The Bench held that the veteran journalist’s acquittal suffered from “patent perversity”, largely because the trial court resorted to “hyper-technicalities” and ignored the binding Supreme Court guidelines for assessing sexual assault cases.
The High Court was particularly scathing regarding the trial court’s evaluation of the survivor. It noted that the trial court’s assessment was marred by “preconceived notions” and a reliance on “irrelevant or inadmissible material”.
Also Read: Tejpal’s 10-yr jail sentences for rape, assault to run concurrently; to appeal conviction in SC
The ‘perfect victim’ archetype
A central pillar of the High Court’s reversal was its rejection of the trial court’s expectation that a survivor must behave in a “stereotypical manner”—that the survivor was to be a “perfect victim and only then could the Courts believe her story of woe”. The bench noted that the trial judge effectively put her on trial for not being a “perfect victim”—a cultural archetype it dismissed as a “myth”.
The Bench observed that the trial court had unfairly used the survivor’s “smiling demeanour” during subsequent work events and her lack of visible physical injuries to discredit her. It clarified: “The ‘perfect victim’ concept… describes an unspoken cultural archetype where a person is fully believed… only if they exhibit absolute vulnerability… and total passivity.”
By expecting the survivor to be “constantly miserable, meek or visibly broken”, it said, the trial court had “ignored the reality of human coping mechanisms”. The Bench asserted that “credibility must be evaluated on facts, not on whether a survivor fits a narrow cultural mould”.
Unlike the trial court, the HC found the survivor’s testimony to be of “sterling quality”— despite an “invasive, humiliating cross-examination” that spanned nearly 1,000 pages across 18 hearing dates, she remained “consistent and steadfast”.
The court highlighted that her account was not solitary but was supported by a robust network of corroboration. As many as seven witnesses, including her mother, partner, and five colleagues, testified that she confided the details of the assault to them immediately following the incidents on 7 and 8 November, 2013.
The Bench held that her version had a “direct correlation with the supporting materia” and qualified the test of high quality and calibre.
“Most glaringly, the (trial) Court permitted an invasive, humiliating cross-examination into the victim’s past sexual history, moral views, and personal WhatsApp messages, directly violating statutory embargoes under the IEA (Indian Evidence Act) that prohibit questioning a victim’s character or past relationships.”
The Bench was critical of the trial court for discarding the survivor’s testimony of Tejpal “kissing her forcibly and putting his tongue in her vagina as she did not record this in her summary of recollection.” “The Trial Court construed this as an improvement in the statement, making it unreliable,” it said.
“The Trial Court similarly misread her inability to open a seven-year-old e-mail account on court hardware after surrendering her phone to the police as a sign of untrustworthiness, and drew unfounded negative inferences regarding her lack of visible physical injuries, her physical response, or her failure to lower her chin to avoid being forcibly kissed or to scratch her attacker.”
Towards the end of the verdict, Justice Gokhale wrote on how 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,” the judge said.
“An insensitive and unresponsive work environment often instills fear in women about venturing out of their homes to pursue meaningful opportunities, thereby preventing them from fully utilising their talents and skills,” she said, noting that the survivor in this case also suffered similar consequences and was compelled to resign.
Voluntary admissions vs coercion
In the 81-page judgement authored by Justice Gokhale, the High Court sharply criticised the trial court for disregarding Tejpal’s apology emails in which he admitted to a “shameful lapse of judgment” and an “encounter” that occurred despite the survivor’s “clear reluctance”.
The trial court had accepted the defense’s argument that these apologies were coerced or given under pressure. However, the High Court found “no evidence” to suggest coercion.
It noted that Tejpal, a powerful figure, had sent two separate apologies—one formal and one personal—and had subsequently stepped down from his position for six months. “No person of reasonable prudence would apologise falsely for such an incident, especially someone like him,” the Bench said.
Consequently, the High Court treated these emails as significant admissions of guilt that the trial court had “wrongly disregarded”.
Establishing presence: CCTV, alibi defence
On the issue of physical evidence, the High Court found that the trial court erred by stating the survivor’s testimony lacked CCTV support. While there were no cameras inside the lift where the assaults occurred, the Bench noted that the seized footage from the ground and second floors established the presence of Tejpal and the survivor there at the exact times testified by her.
Furthermore, the court dismissed Tejpal’s “plea of alibi”—his claim that they had mistakenly exited on the first floor and walked the corridor, leaving no time for an assault.
The Bench noted that the burden of proving an alibi lies on the accused, and Tejpal had failed to provide “positive evidence” for this claim. Even if his story were presumed true, the court found it failed to explain why they would immediately descend via the stairs from the second floor without even attempting to visit the guest’s suite.
‘Invasive’ cross-examination
In one of its most forceful sections, the High Court condemned the trial court for allowing the defense to conduct a “brutal and highly invasive” cross-examination that focused on the survivor’s private life and past relationships.
The Bench observed that “nearly half of the 1,000-page cross-examination consisted of repetitive questions about specific details” of the sexual acts, designed “not to clarify facts… but to find inconsistencies and distort her account.”
The judges expressed shock at the trial court’s “noticeable silence” during this “harassment”, stating it appeared as though “the victim and not the respondent (was) on trial”.
Ultimately, the High Court recognised the “power dynamics at play”. Noting that Tejpal was in a “position of dominance, control, trust and authority” over the survivor, who was his employee and his daughter’s friend, it concluded that he had used this “incredible power” to “vilify and slander” her.
As a final act of restorative justice, the court ordered that the entire fine of Rs 10.11 lakh be given to the survivor as compensation.
(Edited by Tony Rai)
Also Read: ‘Have to be careful’: SC cautions judges against inappropriate observations in sexual violence cases