PANAJI: The Bombay high court, while convicting former Tehelka editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal in the 2013 sexual assault case, has criticised the trial court for expecting the complainant to behave like a “perfect victim” and said a survivor’s credibility cannot be judged by whether she displays stereotypical responses to trauma. It called the trial court’s verdict of acquittal as “perverse”.In its 81-page judgment, the Goa bench of justices Neela Gokhale and Amit S Jamsandekar overturned the 2021 acquittal of Tejpal by the trial court at Mapusa and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment on charges of rape and sexual harassment.The sentences will run concurrently. The court also imposed fines totalling Rs 10.1 lakh, to be paid to the victim, and granted Tejpal four weeks to surrender.
HC rejects ‘perfect victim’ notion
The high court said the trial court had proceeded with the notion that a sexual assault survivor must behave in a stereotypical manner and that the complainant in the case had to be a “perfect victim”.The bench said the “perfect victim” or “ideal victim” concept is an unspoken cultural archetype in which a person is believed and sympathised with only if they display absolute vulnerability, innocence and passivity.When survivors do not fit that mould, their trauma is often devalued, the court said.“Expecting a survivor to be constantly miserable, meek or visibly broken, the trial court has ignored the reality of human coping mechanisms. However, these concepts of a perfect victim are a myth. Credibility must be evaluated on facts, not on whether a survivor fits a narrow cultural mould,” the bench said.The court said neither the trial court nor the accused could decide how the complainant should have reacted to or processed the trauma following the alleged sexual assault.“Many persons deal with trauma in different ways,” the court said, adding that her credibility could not be doubted merely because she did not leave the event venue after the assault.The bench also said the complainant had stood firm during cross-examination and that her testimony was “reliable and consistent”. Her account was corroborated by several witnesses, the court said.
HC criticises trial court’s treatment of complainant
The high court expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which the defence questioned the complainant about her personal life and said it was surprising that the trial court had allowed the defence to “harass and humiliate her” during cross-examination.A review of her examination showed that the defence repeatedly focused on her personally, “as if she were on trial rather than the respondent (Tejpal)”, the court said.The bench also criticised the defence for highlighting her way of life and attempting to portray her as a “promiscuous woman and a libertine”.“She is equally entitled to protection of law. Her evidence cannot be thrown overboard merely because she is alleged to be a woman of easy virtue,” the court said.It added that no inference could be drawn that a woman alleged to be of loose moral character could be raped for that reason, and said every woman has the right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse with anyone.The court also said the trial court’s silence during the complainant’s cross-examination was notable and that it was surprising that the defence was allowed to harass and humiliate her.
Apology emails, CCTV considered
The bench also considered two apology emails sent by Tejpal to the complainant after the incident.The court said the emails showed that he acknowledged the sexual assault, although he described it as a “sexual liaison”.“No person of reasonable prudence would apologise falsely for such an incident, especially someone like him (Tejpal),” the court said.The court also considered CCTV footage from outside the hotel lift where the alleged assaults took place.The footage did not capture the alleged assault inside the lift but showed Tejpal pulling the complainant by her hand into the lift and their appearance again minutes later, corroborating the timeline and circumstances, according to the judgment.The bench said the complainant’s testimony was also corroborated by seven witnesses, including her friends, mother and husband.
Court says Tejpal was in position of control
The court noted that Tejpal was the editor-in-chief and owner of Tehelka while the complainant was a principal correspondent with the magazine.It said Tejpal was therefore in a position of “control and dominance” over her.The bench also noted that the alleged assault took place twice on consecutive days and said Tejpal had tried to shame the complainant for informing his daughter about the assault.The high court rejected the defence’s claims concerning the complainant’s character and allegations that her complaint was motivated by financial or political considerations.
Case dates back to 2013
The case relates to two alleged incidents at the Grand Hyatt in Goa during Tehelka’s THiNK Fest in November 2013.The complainant, who was then working as a journalist with Tehelka, was accompanying Hollywood actor Robert De Niro, the festival’s chief guest.The alleged assaults took place inside a hotel lift on November 7 and 8, 2013. The trial court at Mapusa acquitted Tejpal on May 21, 2021.The Bombay high court later overturned the acquittal and convicted him under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(k), 354, 354A, 354B, 341 and 342.The high court also criticised the conduct of the original trial, saying a judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to ensure that an innocent person is not punished, but also has a public duty to ensure that a guilty person does not escape.Tejpal has maintained his innocence and indicated that he will challenge the high court verdict before the Supreme Court. The high court has granted him four weeks to surrender.(With inputs from PTI)
