Goa government challenges Tarun Tejpal acquittal, calls trial court findings 'perverse'

The Goa government has appealed against the acquittal of Tarun Tejpal, the former editor-in-chief of Tehelka, who was accused of sexually assaulting a female colleague in a Goa hotel in 2013. Arguing before the High Court of Bombay at Goa on Wednesday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the state, described the trial court's findings as a 'classic case of perverse findings.'

Mehta contended that the trial court had allowed 'embarrassing' questions during the cross-examination of the complainant, which should not have been permitted. These questions included inquiries about her views on consensual sex, alcohol consumption, smoking, and whether she had conversations with 'sexual overtones' with friends. He argued that such questioning amounted to 'character assassination' and violated the Indian Evidence Act, which prohibits using a victim's past character as a basis for judgment.

'This is the learned Judge, recording findings… with regard to the girl who has remained consistent through her testimony. This is what perversity looks like. This is the classic case of perverse findings,' Mehta told the court.

The woman journalist had alleged that Tejpal sexually assaulted her on two consecutive nights, November 7 and 8, 2013, in an elevator of a luxury hotel in Goa. In 2021, a sessions court in Goa acquitted Tejpal of all charges. The trial court had observed that the complainant 'did not demonstrate any kind of normative behaviour' that a victim of sexual assault 'might plausibly show.' It also noted the lack of medical evidence and cited the woman's messages to the accused, stating they showed she was neither 'traumatised nor terrified.'

The trial court had highlighted several factors in its judgment, including the woman's past relationships, her views on consensual sex and drinking, her appearance in photographs taken after the alleged assault, and her WhatsApp conversations with friends that included 'flirtatious and sexual' content. Based on these, the court concluded that she 'cannot be called a trustworthy or reliable witness.'

Mehta argued that the trial court should have intervened to stop such questioning and not considered irrelevant evidence. 'These are all embarrassing questions. We are not supposed to embarrass rape victims or molestation victims. Therefore, the Supreme Court has said that the trial court, while recording evidence, is not a post office. The court is not supposed to sit there as a mere court. They will have to participate and stop wherever something contrary to the statute is there,' he said.

The Solicitor General further asserted that the court's reliance on the complainant's character was a violation of the law. 'If this is the law which is to be accepted, then we would be violating the statutory provision, where the past character of the prosecutrix is not to be questioned… This can never be a ground of defence. In the present day… the generation… they send such messages with some sexual overtones and adult content… that does not mean that she is agreeing… (or) she is consenting to having sexual intercourse or oral sex,' he added.

The appeal is currently being heard by the High Court, and arguments are ongoing. The case has drawn widespread attention as it raises questions about the treatment of sexual assault victims in the judicial process and the limits of cross-examination.