New Delhi: Former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment by the Bombay High Court on Thursday in the rape, sexual harassment and assault of his former junior colleague in 2013.
Tejpal was ordered to surrender within two weeks.
At the court, Tejpal pleaded not guilty and said that he would be appealing against the judgement in a higher court of law. Maintaining that he is a political victim, Tejpal described himself as a 62-year-old, a husband and the father of two daughters.
After his conviction this morning, the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court heard the arguments on Tejpal’s sentence.
Appearing for Tejpal, advocate Aabad Ponda told the court that there are no other criminal cases pending against him and this was his first offence. Since the incident of 2013 and the Goa government’s appeal in 2022, Tejpal has not breached any conditions put on him, the court was told.
Submitting that Tejpal’s passport has been surrendered, he prayed for a minimum sentence and eight-week time for the appeal.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Goa government, told the court that Tejpal knew the victim’s father well and in fact was of the age of her father. Plus, the fact that Tejpal “repeated the offence the next day” showed that he had no remorse, he said.
Pronouncing the order, the bench of Justices Neela Gokhale and Amit Jamsandekar noted that the incident took place 13 years ago and there has been no report of misconduct since his acquittal in 2021.
The court handed 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5 lakh after convicting Tejpal under Section 376 (2) (f) of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalises rape by a relative, guardian or teacher or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman.
Under Section 376 (2) (k) penalizing a person commits rape while in a position of control or dominance over a woman, he has been sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5 lakh.
Similarly, he was sentenced 1 year of rigorous imprisonment and Rs.10,000 under Section 354, which criminalises assault or the use of criminal force against a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty.
Under Section 354(b)—covering assault or use of criminal force against a woman with the intent to disrobe her—he’s been given three-year rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 10,000.
All sentences are to run concurrently, meaning that he will be serving jail time for all the offences at the same time rather than one after the other. The court ordered the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Goa to file a compliance report within three months.
The case
On Thursday morning, the HC bench overturned the trial court verdict which acquitted him in 2021. The trial court in Goa had acquitted Tejpal of all charges observing that the complainant “did not demonstrate any kind of normative behavior” that a victim of sexual assault “might plausibly show”.
The Goa govt had challenged this verdict before the High Court.
Arrested in November 2013, after spending six months in a Goa jail, Tejpal was granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2014. Tejpal had told judges that false allegations have been made against him as part of “political vendetta” by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Goa because of his criticism of the party.
Before the high court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that there is no universal standard governing the reaction of a survivor, as responses differ depending on an individual’s education, personality, social background and circumstances.
He contended that the trial court gave undue importance to minor inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements instead of examining whether her core allegations remained consistent.
Referring extensively to an email sent by Tejpal to the complainant after the alleged incident, Mehta submitted that the accused had apologised for his “lapse of judgment”, expressed shame and stated that he believed the encounter had been consensual. These statements amounted to an admission that an encounter had taken place, the solicitor general said.
In defence, Ponda argued that the prosecution misinterpreted Tejpal’s apology emails as admissions of a sexual encounter. None of the apology emails contained any admission of a consensual physical or sexual encounter and the references were only to a consensual verbal conversation of a sexual nature, the court was told.
He also questioned the complainant’s credibility, arguing that her conduct before and after the alleged incident, along with emails, WhatsApp messages and documentary records, contradicted the prosecution’s case.
(Edited by Tony Rai)