The Goa government has moved the Supreme Court of India, seeking enhancement of the 10-year jail term awarded by the Bombay High Court to former Tehelka Editor -In-Chief Tarun Tejpal for the rape of a junior colleague inside a hotel elevator in November 2013, on August 6.
While sentencing him to 10 years, the Bombay HC had reversed his 2021 acquittal by the trial court. The appeal filed through Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta who had led the charge for Goa Police even before the Goa Bench of Bombay High Court said “Sentence imposed by the Hon’ble High Court is grossly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offences committed by the Respondent.
Tejpal was the employer of the victim and was also a friend of her father. He misused his position of authority and trust to commit the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(k), 354, 354A, 354B, 341 and 342 of the IPC, while the victim was performing her duties at an event organised by the Respondent in his capacity as her employer.
The Goa government’s plea said the HC relied upon the fact that 13 years had elapsed since the commission of the offences and that both the victim and the Respondent had moved on with their lives, while imposing the minimum sentence and directing the sentences to run concurrently. “Such reasoning is untenable”.
The government said “The passage of time cannot operate to the benefit of the offender or become a premium for the delay in the administration of justice, particularly at the cost of the victim”.
The government further said : sentence imposed is further disproportionate in view of the Hon’ble High Court’s own finding that the victim was subjected to nearly 1,000 pages of invasive cross-examination, during which the defence sought to harass and humiliate her and portray her as a woman of loose morals. “These circumstances underscore the gravity of the offence and the trauma suffered by the victim, and warranted a sentence commensurate with the nature and seriousness of the crimes committed.”
In its 81-page judgment, the Bombay High Court sharply criticized the original trial’s handling of the case and referred to the deep-seated societal biases The bench forcefully rejected the trial court’s expectation that a sexual assault survivor must show a specific type of trauma. It stated that the concept of an “ideal victim”—an unspoken archetype where a person is believed only if they display absolute vulnerability, complete innocence, and total passivity—is a myth.
The Goa government’s petition further said :’The Petitioner State does not, in the present Petition, seek to reopen or challenge the findings of conviction recorded by the High Court. The challenge is confined to the quantum of sentence and the direction for concurrent operation of sentences. The State relies only upon the findings and circumstances already recorded by the High Court to demonstrate that the sentence imposed is manifestly inadequate The sentence imposed does not adequately reflect the gravity of the offences or the aggravating circumstances found proved by the High Court. The Respondent was not a stranger to the victim.
He was her employer, mentor and a friend of her father, and was also the father of the victim’s close friend. The High Court itself found that the Respondent occupied a position of “dominance, control, trust and authority” over the victim The Respondent was not merely the victim’s superior at the workplace. The Hon’ble High Court has recorded that he was also her mentor and a friend of her father, while his daughter was a close friend of the victim. The Hon’ble High Court has expressly held that the Respondent was in a position of “dominance, control, trust and authority” over the victim.’