Panaji, Aug 6: Journalist Tarun Tejpal was convicted of rape and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment by the Bombay high court on Thursday in a 2013 case that the former magazine editor was acquitted in at the trial court five years ago.
The high court termed the trial court’s 2021 verdict as “perverse”, noting that it fell for the notion that a sexual assault complainant must be a “perfect victim” and conduct herself in a certain way so as 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 organised by the magazine in Goa. The 62-year-old journalist claimed that he was a political victim and would approach the Supreme Court to challenge his 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 took place 13 years ago and Tejpal had not committed any other criminal offence. The maximum punishment for rape is life imprisonment.
“Both parties (the victim and Tejpal) may have moved on in life,” the court said.
The court asked Tejpal to surrender within two weeks but later extended the period to four weeks on a request from his lawyers.
In its 81-page judgment, the high court 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 court said.
The trial court at Mapusa proceeded with the notion that a sexual assault complainant must behave in a stereotypical manner, and the victim in the present case had to be a “perfect victim”, the court 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 court said.
When a victim does not fit into this mould, then their trauma is devalued, it added.
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 said that the “victim having suffered sexual assault would be handed over the entire fine amount”.
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”.
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 judgment, 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 court held.
The bench 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 court 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.
Mehta 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.
Speaking to reporters after the verdict, Tejpal said he would challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court, and also expressed confidence that the truth would eventually come out.
“We will be appealing against this order. We feel the order is wrong. We will be moving the Supreme Court against the order,” he said.
Alleging that he had been singled out because of his work with Tehelka, Tejpal said, “We will go to the Supreme Court definitely. We have no doubt that for the past 13 years they are after me because of my work with Tehelka. We got acquitted after seven years fighting the case in the trial court, they are again after us.”
He claimed that people who had spoken or written against those in power were being targeted.
“The people who are with them, they are acquitted but the people who have done journalism against them or they have said something against them, they are after such people. Look at the number of cases in the past 12 years where they have trapped people who were against them. Umar Khalid has been there in jail for the past six years, there are many people like us,” he said.
The bench also took into consideration the apology email sent by Tejpal to the victim after the incident, and said the message clearly demonstrated that he acknowledged the sexual assault “albeit calling it a sexual liaison”.
“No person of reasonable prudence would apologise falsely for such an incident, especially someone like him (Tejpal),” the court said.
The high court also expressed its displeasure with the manner in which the trial court conducted the case and said “a judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished”.
“A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties,” it said. (PTI)
