Panaji: Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for Goa, told the Bombay high court on Friday that the trial court had allowed the defence to ask objectionable questions to the survivor during the trial of Tehelka founder Tarun Tejpal in the alleged rape case.The survivor had complained that Tejpal raped her in a hotel elevator in Nov 2013. The high court is now hearing state’s appeal against Tejpal’s acquittal by a sessions court in 2021.Mehta read out questions asked to the survivor during cross-examination about her character and friendships, prompting the division bench to say it was “deeply anguished”.“We are extremely sorry to say it is as if the survivor herself is on trial. We are deeply anguished by these questions…. repeatedly the same question again and again…. it appears the survivor is on trial here,” the bench observed orally.Mehta referred to a judgment that stated that while recording evidence the court is not supposed to sit quietly like a post office or a tape recorder, but has to intervene and cannot let these questions be posed.Saying the survivor was of “sterling character”, Mehta said that she remained steadfast in her statement right from day 1 despite being posed luring questions during the cross examination. “She was virtually put on trial as if she was a woman of easy virtue and that she was trying to instigate the accused to do all these things,” the solicitor general said, adding that Tejpal kept changing his statement.Mehta said the survivor didn’t want to escalate the matter with a police investigation and wanted an internal inquiry to be carried out. The women’s commission however took up the issue when it started gaining publicity and then directed Goa police to register a suo motu case, he said.“This shows her innocence and lack of any other personal ill will against Tejpal, except the anger as her bodily integrity was violated. There is no possibility of her acting as a persecutor to anyhow persecute and punish Tejpal. She never wanted this but once police took cognisance she came forward and steadfastly maintained her statement,” Mehta told the high court.The solicitor general said that it was Tejpal’s contention that he merely signed the officially drafted apology and that it doesn’t amount to his admission. Mehta however read out the communication and said the official draft apology was sent to Tejpal which he edited and therefore he applied his mind in the case. Besides this he sent another personal apology to the survivor. A person who has not committed the offence would have said that the draft letter was wrong, Mehta argued, adding that instead Tejpal said it was consensual and kept on changing his statement while the survivor said it was not consensual and remained consistent in her statement.
