Panaji, Aug 6: The Bombay High Court on Thursday convicted and sentenced to ten years in jail former journalist Tarun Tejpal in a 2013 rape case, terming the trial court’s 2021 verdict of acquittal as “perverse” and slamming it for falling prey to the notion that the complainant in such cases should be a “perfect victim” and conduct herself in a certain way to appear credible.
Tejpal, former editor-in-chief of Tehelka, was convicted of raping a junior colleague inside a hotel elevator in 2013 during an event organized by the magazine in Goa. The 62-year-old journalist said he would approach the Supreme Court next week to challenge the conviction.
A bench of Justices Neela Gokhale and Amit Jamsandekar, while handing down the minimum sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, noted that the incident had taken place 13 years ago and Tejpal had not committed any other criminal offence.
“Both parties (the victim and Tejpal) may have moved on in life,” the court said.
The High Court initially asked Tejpal to surrender within two weeks, but later extended the period to four weeks on request from his lawyers.
While Tejpal pleaded for leniency, claiming he was a “political victim” and the father of two daughters, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Goa government, demanded the maximum punishment to send a strong message that “no means no”.
Tejpal was convicted under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Section 376(2)(f) (rape committed by a person in a position of trust or authority), Section 354(a) (sexual harassment), and Section 354(b) (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe).
Under Section 376(2)(f), the maximum punishment is life imprisonment.
The court also imposed a fine of Rs 10,21,000 on Tejpal, and stated that the “victim having suffered sexual assault would be handed over the entire fine amount.”
In its 81-page judgement, the HC expressed strong disapproval about the way the defence put the victim in the dock and focused on her personal life, and said it found it surprising that the trial court “remained silent and allowed the defence to harass and humiliate her during the cross examination”.
The prosecution had established its case “beyond every reasonable doubt” and the victim too had stood firm in her testimony, and hence it had no hesitation in believing her statement which was reliable and consistent, the HC said.
The trial court at Mapusa proceeded with the notion that a sexual assault victim must behave in a stereotypical manner, and the victim in the present case had to be a “perfect victim”, the HC said.
“The ‘perfect victim’ concept, more formally known as an ‘ideal victim’, described an unspoken cultural archetype where a person is fully believed, sympathised with and granted legitimacy only if they exhibit absolute vulnerability, complete innocence and total passivity,” the High Court said.
When a survivor does not fit into this mould, then their trauma is devalued, it added.
During the hearing on sentencing, Tejpal addressed the court in person to request leniency. “I am 62 years old today. I am a father of two daughters. I have a wife. I am a political victim. My lawyers have also asked me to urge the court to show leniency,” he said.
The high court, in its judgement, also noted that every person deals with trauma differently, and neither the court nor the accused could decide how the victim should have reacted or processed her trauma following the sexual assault.
Tejpal was then the editor-in-chief and owner of Tehelka while the victim was a principal correspondent with the magazine, and hence undoubtedly “Tejpal was in a position of control and dominance over her”, the HC held.
The bench also admonished the defence for highlighting her way of life so as to declare her a “promiscuous woman and a libertine”.
“She is equally entitled to protection of law. Her evidence cannot be thrown overboard merely because she is alleged to be a woman of easy virtue,” the HC said.
No inference can be drawn that a woman alleged to be of loose moral character can be raped by a person for that reason, the court said, adding “Every woman has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse with anyone.”
Tejpal’s lawyers Aabad Ponda and Subash Jadhav requested the minimum prescribed punishment, noting that Tejpal had not violated any of his bail conditions.
Solicitor General Mehta, on the other hand, argued for the maximum sentence of life imprisonment. “The convict was in a position of dominance over the victim. The victim was not just a colleague but also a friend of his daughter. The convict has shown no remorse,” Mehta said.
The bench sentenced Tejpal to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 (2)(f), one year’s imprisonment under Section 354(a) and three years’ jail term under Section 354(b). All sentences would run concurrently, it said.
