Top court seeks Goa response on Tarun Tejpal appeal
Justices M M Sundresh and P B Varale of the Supreme Court have issued a formal notice to the Goa government regarding an appeal filed by Tarun Tejpal. Former Tehelka editor-in-chief Tejpal is currently challenging his recent conviction and a 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence for the 2013 sexual assault of a woman journalist. His lawyer, Kapil Sibal, presented the plea, emphasizing that the conviction resulted from a reversal of an earlier acquittal and asserting his client's absolute right to appeal.
📲Follow our WhatsApp Channel for the latest news, breaking updates, and important headlines. Stay connected with us for more updates!
High courts often reverse lower court acquittals in sensitive cases when trial judges misinterpret the psychological responses of sexual assault survivors. Tejpal had previously requested an exemption from surrendering, but the top court directed him to enter custody before hearing his appeal. He has now surrendered, prompting his legal team to pursue bail since the sentence was suspended initially. Concurrently, state prosecutors approached the highest court with their own petition. They seek to enhance the 10-year minimum punishment to life imprisonment, arguing that the penalty remains grossly inadequate.
Reversal of initial verdict
Events leading to this legal battle occurred during a literary festival at a Goa hotel in November 2013. Authorities charged Tejpal with rape, sexual harassment, and wrongful confinement. Initially, an additional sessions court in Mapusa cleared him of all charges in May 2021. That court reasoned that the survivor did not exhibit traumatized behavior, which weakened the prosecution's claims. State officials subsequently appealed this decision.
Also Read: Cuttack Food Safety Officer transferred amid adulterated paneer, chhena case
Bombay High Court judges in Goa overturned the acquittal on August 6. They convicted Tejpal of aggravated rape and handed down the 10-year term. The judgment strongly criticised the trial court for expecting a survivor to act in a predictable, miserable manner. Justices noted that people process trauma differently and condemned the lower court for allowing invasive cross-examination regarding the survivor's moral views and past relationships. State lawyers now insist that the passage of 13 years since the incident should not benefit the offender through a lenient sentence. They emphasise that such a delay in justice delivery must not compromise the severity of punishment required for such serious offenses.
Also Read: Human trafficking syndicate busted: 5 labour contractors arrested
