The Goa government formally requested the Bombay High Court on Wednesday to overturn the 2021 sexual assault acquittal of Tehelka founder Tarun Tejpal. State representatives argued that the trial court fundamentally misinterpreted digital evidence and unfairly attacked the complainant’s character in its original ruling.
Representing the state before Justices Amit Borkar Jamsandekar and Neela Gokhale, senior advocate Tushar Mehta stated that the lower court’s decision was legally flawed and contrary to the established record. He noted that while an acquitted individual carries a reinforced presumption of innocence, appellate courts retain broad authority to reevaluate evidence if a trial court’s conclusions are found to be erroneous or perverse.
Evaluation Of Digital Evidence
Mehta emphasized that the sessions court improperly utilized the complainant’s online communications and social media history. He argued that this material should have been assessed strictly to evaluate factual credibility. Instead, Mehta stated, the lower court improperly leveraged the evidence to make broad assumptions about the former journalist’s general moral character.
Defense Requests And Evidence Review
During the proceedings, defense counsel Aabad Ponda requested that his team receive full access to the case’s underlying physical and digital evidence. This includes digital video recorders, electronic communications, and hotel surveillance video relied upon in the original judgment.
Following the midday recess, the judicial bench convened privately in chambers with attorneys from both sides to review the hotel CCTV footage.
Background Of The Case
The legal dispute originates from a November 2013 incident during a Tehelka magazine event in Goa, where a female junior colleague accused Tejpal of sexually assaulting her inside a hotel elevator.
A sessions court cleared Tejpal of all charges in 2021. The presiding judge faced significant public scrutiny after ruling that the complainant failed to display the “normative behaviour” expected of a sexual assault survivor.
Later that same year, the High Court formally admitted the state’s appeal and temporarily stayed the trial court’s controversial remarks regarding the complainant’s conduct while it examines the merits of the case.
