PANAJI
Five years after his acquittal, former Tehelka editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal was on Thursday convicted in the 2013 sexual assault case as the High Court of Bombay at Goa held that the trial court's assessment of the evidence was ‘perverse,’ and the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Division Bench of Justice Neela Gokhale and Justice Amit Jamsandekar sentenced Tejpal to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and imposed a total fine of Rs 10.21 lakh for around seven offenses punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The sentences will run concurrently.
While granting him four weeks to surrender, the Court also directed that the entire amount be paid to the survivor as compensation.
The Bench, while setting aside the trial court's judgment, delivered a scathing assessment of its findings. “We find that the victim has made truthful statements, and the prosecution has established the case against the Respondent beyond every reasonable doubt. The Trial Court fell in error in acquitting the Respondent of the charges levelled against him.
The appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court is not only unreasonable but perverse. The conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court are untenable and, in the established facts and circumstances of the case, the view expressed by it is not a possible view,” it said.
The court pronounced Tejpal guilty earlier in the day and thereafter heard arguments on the quantum of sentence before reserving its order till 2.30 pm.
After the conviction order, an emotional Tejpal addressed the Bench, saying, “I have nothing much to say,” while informing the court that he intended to challenge the judgment before the Supreme Court. Referring to his age of 62 years and his family responsibilities, he sought leniency.
During the sentencing hearing, senior advocate Aabad Ponda, appearing for Tejpal, submitted that this was his first offence and that no other criminal case was pending against him. He argued that the alleged incident dated back to 2013, Tejpal had remained on bail since the appeal was filed in 2022 without violating any conditions, and that his passport remained with the authorities, preventing him from travelling abroad.
Ponda urged the court to impose the minimum sentence and requested eight weeks for Tejpal to surrender so that he could approach the apex court.
Appearing for the State, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pressed for maximum punishment, contending that Tejpal occupied a position of trust and authority over the survivor.
“He was a parent figure to the victim, knew her father and she was the same age as the Respondent's daughter,” Mehta said. He further submitted that the respondent repeated the offence the following day, demonstrating a lack of remorse.
“When a woman says 'No', it means 'No'; that should have been understood by the Respondent, he being of the age of the victim's father,” he argued.
While determining the sentence, the High Court reflected on the broader impact of workplace sexual harassment on women.
“Sexual harassment at work causes significant and enduring harm to women's career paths, punishing them for factors outside their control. Additionally, a widespread culture of victim blaming and institutional resistance isolates survivors, prompting them to switch jobs or accept demotions. An insensitive and unresponsive work environment often instills fear in women about venturing out of their homes to pursue meaningful opportunities, thereby preventing them from fully utilizing their talents and skills,” it said.
Referring specifically to the survivor, the Bench noted that the victim in the present matter also suffered similar consequences as she was compelled to resign. “She also suffered profound embarrassment during trial.”
At the same time, the court recorded mitigating circumstances while deciding the sentence. "However, the incident took place 13 years ago; the Respondent is a Senior Citizen with a family of his wife and two daughters; there is no report of any misconduct by the Respondent or an allegation of having committed any offence post the acquittal order. Both parties must have by now moved on with their lives,” it said while allowing the appeal and sentencing the accused.
