Bombay High Court Grants Leave to Goa Government to Appeal Tarun Tejpal’s Acquittal in Rape Case

Judgement Given On : 21/05/2021

Case Overview:

The Bombay High Court at Goa has granted leave to the Goa government to appeal against the acquittal of Tarun Tejpal, the former editor of Tehelka, in a case of rape and sexual assault. Tarun Tejpal was accused of sexually assaulting a colleague in the elevator of a hotel in Goa during Tehelka magazine’s annual event. On May 21, 2021, Additional Sessions Judge Kshama Joshi acquitted him of all charges, citing doubts about the victim’s testimony and conduct.

Observations and Reasons for Granting Leave to Appeal:

In its decision to grant leave to the State Government to appeal the acquittal, the Bombay High Court made several key observations:

  1. The Court stated that a prima facie case had been made out, and arguable issues had arisen in the matter, warranting further scrutiny.
  2. The Court noted that a deeper examination and re-evaluation of the evidence were necessary, especially regarding the victim’s SMS, WhatsApp, and email messages to the accused. These communications needed to be considered in the context of corroborating the victim’s testimony.
  3. The Court also emphasized the need to reevaluate the inferences made about the victim’s conduct, particularly her decision to consult lawyers before filing her complaint.
  4. While considering the application for leave to appeal, the Court cited the case law, stating that the determining factor for granting leave was not whether the acquittal order was “perverse” but whether the evidence required deeper scrutiny and reappreciation.

Maintainability of the Application:

The Court addressed and rejected several preliminary objections raised by Tejpal’s counsel, Amit Desai, regarding the maintainability of the government’s application:

  • Objection 1: Desai argued that there was no official decision by the State Government to direct the Public Prosecutor to file the appeal. The Court found that the decision was in the form of notations and endorsements in the files, signed by the Chief Minister and other officials, and thus, the objection was futile.
  • Objection 2: Desai contended that the Public Prosecutor and Director of Prosecution were bypassed in the decision-making process. The Court opined that while it was desirable to involve them, the absence of their involvement did not invalidate the decision.
  • Objection 3: Desai argued that the application was filed before obtaining a copy of the judgment. The Court acknowledged that it was typical to decide on filing an appeal after obtaining and examining the judgment but noted that this timing did not render the decision to file the appeal in advance a nullity.
  • Objection 4: Desai pointed out that the appeal lacked an affidavit. The Court clarified that an affidavit was not mandatory based on relevant rules.

The Court rejected preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the government’s application for leave to appeal.