Bombay HC Overturns Tarun Tejpal Acquittal; Tehelka Editor Guilty in 2013 Sexual Assault Case

Goa/New Delhi: In State of Goa vs. Tarunjit Tejpal (CRIA/16/2022), the Bombay High Court on Thursday overturns the acquittal of former Tehelka editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal in the 2013 sexual assault case, allows the Goa government’s appeal, and convicts him under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(k), 354A and 354B of the Indian Penal Code. A division bench of Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale and Justice Amit Borkar pronounces the verdict and schedules a separate hearing on the quantum of sentence.

The bench decides Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2021, filed by the State of Goa, and sets aside the May 2021 judgment of the Mapusa Sessions Court that had acquitted Tejpal of all charges. The High Court’s detailed judgment is awaited.

The case arises from allegations made by a junior colleague who accuses Tejpal of sexually assaulting her inside an elevator at the Grand Hyatt hotel during Tehelka‘s THINK Fest in Goa in November 2013. According to the prosecution, the alleged assaults take place on two occasions over two consecutive days during the event. Goa Police later register an FIR and prosecute Tejpal on charges including rape.

A key piece of evidence during the proceedings is an email Tejpal sends to the complainant after the incident. In the message, he apologises for what he describes as a “shameful lapse of judgment” and an “awful misreading of the situation.” Prosecutors argue that the email supports the survivor’s account, while the defence maintains that it does not amount to an admission of guilt.

The appeal challenges the findings of Special Judge Kshama Joshi, who acquitted Tejpal in May 2021 after holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. During the appellate proceedings, the Goa government argues that the trial court misreads the evidence, places undue emphasis on the complainant’s conduct and effectively shifts the focus away from the accused’s actions.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State, tells the High Court that the survivor remained consistent throughout the investigation and trial. He argues that the trial court subjected her testimony to an unjustified level of scrutiny and ignored material evidence, including electronic records and witness testimony.

After the conviction, Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda seeks leniency during sentencing and requests the court to stay the conviction for eight weeks to allow Tejpal to approach the Supreme Court. He tells the bench that the alleged offence dates back more than 13 years and that no other criminal case has been registered against his client. Tejpal, who remains present in court, also requests leniency.

The State opposes the plea for leniency. Mehta argues that the case sends an important message on sexual consent and tells the court that “when a girl says no, it means no.” The bench posts the matter for a separate hearing on the quantum of sentence later in the day.