PANAJI
The Bombay High Court has noted that “prima facie” the order acquitting former editor of Tehelka Tarun Tejpal of charges of rape required a ‘revisit’, especially in the light of inferences made based on the victim’s conduct after the incident that allegedly took place in a starred hotel in Goa back in 2013.
“We believe that deeper scrutiny and reappreciation may be necessary of the evidence of the respondent's (Tejpal) SMS, WhatsApp, and email messages sent to the victim… this evidence has to be evaluated from the context of corroboration of the victim's testimony in the matter,” the High Court division bench of Justices M S Sonak and R N Laddha ruled.
“Some of the learned Additional Sessions Judge inferences about the victim's conduct may also need a revisit. The inference from the victim's conduct of consulting some lawyers before lodging her complaint may also require a revisit."
"Finally, the contention about the alleged admissions in the messages or the proper scope of such statements also requires consideration… At this stage, we might have only preferred to record that a prima facie case has been made out and arguable issues arise in the matter,” the High Court further said.
The trial court while acquitting Tejpal of charges of sections 376 (rape), 354A (sexual harassment), 354B (criminal assault with intent to disrobe a woman), 341 (wrongful restraint) and 342 (wrongful confinement) of the Indian Penal Code, extensively cited the conduct of the victim after the alleged incident to conclude that since she didn’t behave as a victim ideally would cast doubts on the veracity of the allegations.
The bench dismissed objections from Tejpal’s lawyers who argued that the application for leave to appeal was not maintainable citing technical grounds as well as the “non-application of mind” since the appeal was filed even before a certified copy of the trial court order was made available.
“Based on the material on record, we do not think any case is made out to infer non-application of mind rendering such a decision a nullity. A range of considerations is available to the State government to decide whether or not to institute an appeal against an order of acquittal. It is neither necessary nor feasible to enumerate the range of considerations that can be validly taken into account for arriving at such a decision,” the High Court said.
“A range of considerations is available to the State government to decide whether or not to institute an appeal against an order of acquittal. A State government may legitimately entertain a perception that such an acquittal must be tested before the High Court. Second, it may legitimately entertain a perception that there was clear and compelling evidence on record, based upon which no acquittal was possible. Third, the State government may legitimately entertain a perception that the Sessions Court may not have appropriately appreciated the law, particularly on the onus of proof or the credence to a victim's testimony,” the High Court stated.
“...it is also possible that such a decision can, in a given case, be actuated by some extraneous or even malafide considerations. None were at least suggested in the course of arguments. But then, all this can certainly be examined when the court considers the application for leave judicially,” the High Court noted.
The High Court also ordered Tejpal to seek fresh bail before the trial court as well as direct the trial court to release his passport for renewal.
