Tarun Tejpal faces life term: The charges that led to his rape conviction

Tehelka founder Tarun Tejpal has been convicted of aggravated rape, sexual harassment and assault with intent to disrobe a colleague during a 2013 Goa event.

In Short

• The Goa bench said the sentencing order would be delivered later
• He was convicted under IPC provisions covering rape, harassment and disrobing
• Section 376(2)(f) applies when the accused holds trust or authority

The Bombay High Court on Thursday convicted former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal of rape and other sexual offences against a female colleague during a 2013 event in Goa, overturning a sessions court verdict that had acquitted him.

Tejpal has been convicted under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including those dealing with aggravated rape, sexual harassment and assault with intent to disrobe a woman. The most serious charges carry a minimum prison term of 10 years, which may extend to imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life.

"We have set aside the judgment and order and convicted Tejpal. We have convicted him under sections 376(2)(f) and (k), 354A, 354B of IPC," the High Court said.

RAPE BY PERSON IN POSITION OF TRUST OR AUTHORITY

IPC Section 376(2)(f) deals with aggravated rape committed by a person who is a relative, guardian or teacher of the woman, or otherwise occupies a position of trust or authority in relation to her.

The provision carries rigorous imprisonment for a minimum of 10 years, which can extend to imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life, along with a fine.

RAPE BY PERSON IN POSITION OF CONTROL OR DOMINANCE

Section 376(2)(k) applies when a person who is in a position of control or dominance over a woman commits rape upon her. The provision can cover circumstances in which the accused exercises substantial professional, institutional or other authority over the woman.

The offence is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for at least 10 years, which may extend to imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life, along with a fine.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Section 354A covers sexual harassment, including unwelcome physical contact and advances involving explicit sexual overtures, demands or requests for sexual favours, showing pornography against a woman's will and making sexually coloured remarks.

For unwelcome physical contact involving explicit sexual overtures, demanding sexual favours or showing pornography against a woman's will, the punishment can extend to three years' rigorous imprisonment, a fine, or both. Sexually coloured remarks can attract imprisonment of up to one year, a fine, or both.

ASSAULT OR USE OF FORCE WITH INTENT TO DISROBE

Section 354B applies when a man assaults or uses criminal force against a woman, or abets such an act, with the intention of disrobing her or compelling her to be naked.

The offence carries a prison term of between three and seven years, along with a fine.

The key distinction between the provisions is the nature of the offence. Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(k) deal with aggravated forms of rape, while Section 354A pertains to sexual harassment and Section 354B deals with assault or criminal force intended to disrobe a woman.

Tejpal was prosecuted under the IPC sections because the offence occurred in 2013, long before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) came into effect, and the Constitution prohibits the retrospective application of criminal laws.

WHAT IS THE CASE AGAINST TEJPAL

The rape case dates back to November 2013, when a former junior colleague of then Tehelka editor Tejpal alleged that he sexually assaulted her inside a hotel lift during the magazine's ThinkFest event in Goa. Tejpal was subsequently charged with rape and other sexual offences, but a Goa sessions court acquitted him in 2021.

The state government challenged the verdict before the Bombay High Court. During the appeal, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the trial court had wrongly assessed the complainant's conduct on preconceived notions of how a sexual assault survivor should behave and had given undue weight to minor inconsistencies in her statements.

The prosecution also relied on emails Tejpal sent to the complainant after the alleged incident, in which he apologised for a "lapse of judgment" and expressed shame, arguing that these amounted to an acknowledgement that an encounter had taken place. Tejpal's defence disputed this interpretation, maintaining that the emails referred only to a consensual verbal conversation of a sexual nature and did not admit to any physical or sexual encounter.

His counsel also questioned the complainant's account and cited emails, WhatsApp messages, CCTV footage and expert evidence to argue that the prosecution's version of events was inconsistent.

On Thursday, the Bombay High Court overturned Tejpal's acquittal and convicted him of rape, sexual harassment and using criminal force with intent to disrobe.

- Ends