Goa court questions conduct of survivor while acquitting Tarun Tejpal

Sessions Judge Kshama Joshi said the evidence submitted by the prosecution and defence creates doubt on the truthfulness of the prosecutrix

Inexplicable normalcy of the victim after the two alleged sexual assaults, shoddy police investigation and an ‘outright lie’ in her deposition are some of the reasons which may have led to the acquittal of former Tehelka editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal courtesy “benefit of doubt”, according to a judgement by a Goa trial court. The entire 527-page judgement was made available in the public domain on Wednesday.

Additional District and Sessions North Goa judge Kshama Joshi in her judgment has also underlined “glaring contradictions” in the statements of the victim, her mother and brother, as well as in the statement made by the victim in context of the CCTV footage of the hotel where the alleged crime occurred in November 2013.

While the Court on May 21, acquitted all charges levelled against Tejpal under sections 376 (rape), 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement) 354A (sexual harassment) and 354B (criminal assault) of the Indian Penal Code, the Goa government has filed an appeal against the acquittal before the Bombay High Court.

The judgement, recounting the statement of the victim states that she claimed to be “distraught, in shock and trauma, in fear and anxiety, crying herself to sleep and shattered” after the alleged sexual assaults in the elevator of a five-star resort on November 7 and 8 by Tejpal, but adds that her state of normalcy after the two alleged assaults was inexplicable.

Here is a timeline of the Tarun Tejpal case

“…nothing can explain the absolute normalcy of her behaviour and state of mind inside the privacy of her own room given her own avowed state of mind - such that the colleague sharing this small hotel room with her discovers two weeks later that the prosecutrix claims to have been sexually assaulted on those very nights!” the judgement states.

The Court has also observed that the victim did not share the details of the two sexual assaults with her roommate and her closest friend at Tehelka, Samia Singh, or even her mother, but instead, according to her statement, chose to share the details with three male colleagues “who were not intimate friends”.

While the victim in her statement said that she cried and narrated the instances of assault to her husband over phone from her room, the judgement citing the statement of her roommate raises questions about how the latter “did not hear her speak on the phone at any point in even a mildly disturbed state so as to alert her that something was amiss with the prosecutrix when the prosecutrix has stated that she was talking to her husband nearly for more than an hour”.

The judgement also put the spotlight on the inconsistencies in the statements of the victim, her mother and her brother, stating that the victim’s statement did not inspire confidence.

Also Read | Goa govt challenges Tarun Tejpal's acquittal in sexual assault case in HC

“The evidence of the prosecutrix in her examination-in-chief and her cross-examination also differs on material particulars. In these sets of facts, it would be extremely risky to base the conviction of the accused on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix when it does not inspire confidence,” the judgement states.

“There are material omissions and glaring contradictions in the evidence of the Prosecutrix and her mother and brother. Each of them have a different story to tell about the commission of the offence of rape on the prosecutrix on three occasions,” it adds.

The order also states that the victim had “outright” lied in her deposition, about the reason why she continued her stay in Goa even after the assaults, adding that she wanted to spend time with a Russian ad filmmaker in Goa, and not because she was “traumatised and disgusted by the accused and Tehelka and her abandoning her duties and choosing to stay on in Goa as a result”.

The Court has also hauled the police over coals for their shoddy investigation right from the time the FIR was registered, questioning the decision of the Goa Police to appoint the same officer who had filed the First Information Report (in a crime involving rape or murder, the complaint is filed on behalf of the state) to investigate the crime.

Also Read | My family had to deal with catastrophic fallout of false allegations: Tejpal after acquittal

"PW 70 (investigation officer Sunita Sawant) has admitted that she did not move any proposal before her superiors that she being the complainant, the investigation should be handed over to some other officer, and claimed that her superiors directed her to investigate the offence. However, she admitted that her diaries do not reveal that she had any discussion with her superiors about the investigation being handed over to some other police officer, she being the complainant in the case," the judgement order reads.

“The above evidence of PW70 therefore clearly shows despite the availability of another lady police inspector of the Crime Branch, the investigating officer and her superiors malafidely retained the investigation with PW70 who was the complainant," it also says, stating that the investigation officer committed omissions and commissions while proving the case and did not investigate crucial and vital aspects.

The judgement has also faulted the investigation officer for procedural lapses in collating video evidence found in the CCTV tapes and for ignoring the glaring inconsistencies in the statements of the victims when juxtaposed with the CCTV footage.

"The IO did not compare the statements made by the prosecutrix in her statement dated November 26, 2013 with the CCTV footage, which constitutes the most neutral evidence in the case. The IO did not find it necessary or relevant or important to refer to the CCTV footage while recording the statement of the prosecutrix despite already having viewed the CCTV footage and being aware that there were glaring contradictions between the footage and the account of the prosecutrix," the judgement says.