Accepts plea to place matter high on court board
PANAJI
Nearly five years after the Goa government challenged the acquittal of former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal in the rape case, the High Court of Bombay at Goa on Thursday indicated that it would not entertain delays in hearing the appeal.
The Division Bench of Justice Neela Gokhale and Justice Amit Jamsandekar observed that it would “anyway not allow adjournments” after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, urged the court to ensure that respondents do not seek repeated postponements.
Mehta, who appeared for the hearing via video conferencing, also submitted to the court that the State would file a summary of the evidence collected against Tejpal within the next few days to facilitate the hearing of the appeal.
“Within three or four days, I will place on record a summary of the evidence... and request (the Bench to ensure) that the respondents do not seek adjournments,” Mehta submitted.
During the hearing, counsel for Tejpal sought a copy of the paper book, following which the Bench directed that the documents be furnished to him.
While adjourning the matter to next Thursday, the court also accepted Mehta’s request that the case be listed high on the board.
The State had challenged the May 2021 judgment of the trial court, which acquitted Tejpal of charges of rape and sexual assault -- allegations by a former colleague during an event in Goa in 2013.
During earlier hearings in the appeal, Mehta had mounted a strong attack on the trial court verdict, arguing that it reflected a complete lack of sensitivity towards crimes against women and a failure to appreciate the law. He had contended that the trial judge allowed extensive cross-examination that effectively put the survivor on trial and ignored safeguards introduced through the 2013 amendments to the Evidence Act, which bar reference to a victim’s past sexual conduct.
Mehta had also criticised portions of the acquittal judgment that questioned the survivor’s conduct during and after the alleged assault, arguing that the court had incorrectly relied on preconceived notions of how a victim of sexual harassment ought to behave.
