BREAKING | Bombay HC Convicts Former Tehelka Editor Tarun Tejpal in 2013 Rape Case; SG Tushar Mehta Seeks Life Term

Former Tehelka Editor-in-Chief Tarun Tejpal was on Thursday convicted by the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court in the rape case lodged by his former junior colleague in 2013, with the Court setting aside the trial court judgment that had acquitted him.

A Division Bench of Justice Neela Gokhale and Justice Amit Borkar Jamsandekar proceeded to hear the parties on the question of sentence after pronouncing the conviction.

Appearing for the State of Goa, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the Court to award the maximum punishment, arguing that the sentence should carry a strong deterrent message.

Seeking the highest sentence prescribed by law, Mehta submitted that the accused occupied a position akin to that of a father vis-à-vis the prosecutrix, who was not only of his daughter's age but was also a close friend of his daughter.

"The punishment must have a deterrent effect," the Solicitor General submitted, adding that this was "one of the very peculiar circumstances" emerging from the case.

Mehta further argued that the accused displayed "no remorse" and, according to the prosecution case, repeated the conduct on the following day despite the victim's resistance.

"He was brazen despite resistance, despite the victim saying no. His behaviour was brazen," he submitted.

The Solicitor General also objected to the defence's attempt to portray the prosecutrix's conduct after the incident as inconsistent with that of a victim of sexual assault.

He argued that the prosecutrix's mature and composed behaviour had been wrongly projected as though she had "enjoyed the molestation," contending that such reasoning could not operate to the benefit of the accused.

"The punishment should be commensurate with the relationship which they had" Mehta submitted.

Concluding his submissions on sentence, the Solicitor General urged the High Court to send a clear constitutional message on sexual consent.

"It is high time where the highest constitutional court of the State pronounces by giving him the maximum sentence that no means no. You may be in a dominant position...whosoever you are, but when a girl says no, it means no" he submitted.

Following the prosecution's submissions, senior advocate Aabad Ponda, appearing for Tejpal, sought a stay of the conviction order for eight weeks to enable the accused to approach the Supreme Court.

Without commenting on the merits of the conviction, Ponda submitted that the alleged offence dated back to 2013 and that Tejpal had remained at liberty following his acquittal without ever misusing the concession of bail.

He pointed out that there were conflicting findings between the trial court and the High Court and argued that Tejpal had a statutory right to challenge the conviction before the Supreme Court.

"The man has never absconded...I can't run away from this country, or I can't run away from the law" Ponda submitted, adding that there was no necessity to take him into custody immediately.

Ponda also submitted that Tejpal's passport had remained with the authorities despite his acquittal and argued that there was no possibility of his fleeing from justice. He urged the Court to grant a reasonable period to approach the Supreme Court "with dignity."

The Solicitor General opposed any stay on the conviction or sentence and urged that Tejpal be taken into custody, leaving it open to him to seek bail before the Supreme Court.

After hearing both sides, the Division Bench reserved the matter on sentence and posted it for pronouncement at 2:30 PM. Before rising, the Bench indicated that it would dictate the sentence later in the afternoon.

A complaint was filed against Tejpal for sexually assaulting his colleague in a hotel in Goa in November 2013. Tejpal was charged for the offenses punishable under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement), 354 (assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty), 354-A (sexual harassment), 354-B (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 376(2)(f) (person in a position of authority over women, committing rape) and 376(2)k) (rape by a person in a position of control) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

He was acquitted by the Trial Court in May 2021, following which, the state had filed an appeal before the Goa bench of the High Court of Bombay.