Tarun Tejpal's rape acquittal order perverse, untenable: Bombay HC rebukes trial court

The Bombay High Court set aside Tarun Tejpal's acquittal in the 2013 rape case, holding that the trial court's findings were "perverse", "untenable" and based on an unreasonable appreciation of evidence despite the prosecution proving its case beyond reasonable doubt.

In Short

• Bombay HC set aside Tarun Tejpal's acquittal in 2013 rape case
• Criticised trial court for relying on stereotypes, inadmissible material
• Highlighted invasive cross-examination, flawed inferences by trial court

Calling the trial court's reasoning "perverse", "untenable" and contrary to the evidence on record, the Bombay High Court dismantled Tarun Tejpal's acquittal point by point, identifying a series of legal and factual errors that, it said, had resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.

The court found that the trial judge relied on rape myths and gender stereotypes, scrutinised the survivor's conduct through the lens of how an "ideal" victim should behave, misread Tejpal's apology emails, permitted invasive questioning into the survivor's sexual history and personal messages, and ignored settled Supreme Court principles governing the evaluation of sexual assault cases.

The case stemmed from allegations by Tejpal's former junior colleague, who accused the veteran journalist of sexually assaulting her inside a hotel elevator during the ThinkFest event in Goa in November 2013. Setting aside the Goa Sessions Court's 2021 acquittal, the High Court convicted Tejpal, sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and granted him four weeks to surrender.

WHAT BOMBAY HC SAID WHILE OVERTURNING ACQUITTAL

The Trial Court's findings are directly contrary to the evidence on record and thus per se perverse.

The Trial Court's evaluation of the victim's testimony and evidence exhibits multiple fatal flaws, largely stemming from preconceived notions and reliance on irrelevant or inadmissible material.

The Trial Court drew unfounded negative inferences regarding her lack of visible physical injuries, her physical response, or her failure to lower her chin to avoid being forcibly kissed or to scratch her attacker.

In doing so, the Court relied on stereotypical assumptions about how an "ideal" victim should physically resist or emotionally react, going so far as to hold her smiling demeanour during subsequent work events against her.

The Trial Court has also erred in observing that there was no whisper of admission of sexual assault or any of its attributes in the apology e-mails. The apology e-mails, in fact, clearly relate to an 'encounter', 'sexual liaison' and 'furtive acts', in respect of which the Respondent issued two apologies – one formal and the other personal.

Most glaringly, the Court permitted an invasive, humiliating cross-examination into the victim's past sexual history, moral views, and personal WhatsApp messages... The Trial Court appears to be influenced by extraneous, inadmissible material and testimony, including graphic details of the victim's past sexual history...

The Court incorrectly drew adverse inferences from the victim consulting an NGO and legal counsel, treating it as a potential fabrication... The Trial Court failed to appreciate that the victim, a young professional woman, was pitted against the might of the Respondent and his organisation.

We find that the victim has made truthful statements, and the prosecution has established the case against the Respondent beyond every reasonable doubt.

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.

WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT HARMS WOMEN'S CAREERS: HC

While discussing sentencing, the High Court observed that sexual harassment at the workplace causes significant and enduring harm to women’s career paths by punishing them for factors beyond their control. It said a widespread culture of victim blaming and institutional resistance isolates survivors, often forcing them to change jobs or accept demotions.

The court further observed that an insensitive and unresponsive work environment instils fear in women about pursuing meaningful opportunities, preventing them from fully utilising their talents and skills.

Referring to the present case, the High Court said the victim suffered similar consequences. She was compelled to resign and also suffered profound embarrassment during the trial.

- Ends