PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Thursday reserved its judgment in the State government's appeal against the acquittal of former Tehelka Editor-in-Chief Tarun Tejpal in the 2013 sexual assault case after hearing final submissions from both sides.
The prosecution and defence presented sharply opposing interpretations of the evidence, particularly a series of apology emails sent by Tejpal to the complainant after the alleged incident before the Division Bench of Justice Neela Gokhale and Justice Amit Jamsandekar.
Appearing for the State through video conferencing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the trial court had wrongly disbelieved the complainant by relying on stereotypical assumptions about how a survivor of sexual assault should behave. He submitted that there is no fixed or expected response to such an incident and that the complainant's decision to continue her professional work could not be treated as a circumstance against her.
Mehta also told the court that minor inconsistencies in a witness' statements are natural and do not affect the substance of the prosecution's case. He argued that the complainant's account had remained materially consistent from the beginning, as reflected in her complaint to her employer, messages exchanged after the incident and other contemporaneous records.
The State further relied on Tejpal's apology emails, contending that repeated expressions of remorse, references to a ‘lapse of judgment’ and his statement that he believed the encounter had been consensual amounted to significant admissions. Mehta argued these communications were inconsistent with the defence's present stand that no incident had taken place inside the hotel lift.
Countering the prosecution, senior advocate Aabad Ponda, appearing for Tejpal, maintained that the apology emails had been read out of context, arguing that the expression ‘fleeting consensual encounter’ referred only to a consensual sexual conversation and not to any physical or sexual act.
Ponda also relied on the testimony and cross-examination of prosecution witness Shoma Chaudhury, submitting that Tejpal's version consistently referred only to a sexually suggestive conversation outside Block No. 7 on November 7, 2013. He argued that if the emails were indeed an admission of a physical encounter, the defence would have had no reason to contest evidence relating to CCTV footage, the lift and other factual aspects of the prosecution's case.
The defence further submitted that the complainant's own WhatsApp exchanges showed that she did not interpret the apology as an admission of sexual assault. Ponda ultimately argued that the prosecution had failed to establish that the emails corroborated its case and that the evidence, viewed in its entirety, left sufficient reasonable doubt in favour of the accused. After hearing both sides, the High Court reserved its verdict.
