Panaji: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the state of Goa, informed the Bombay High Court on Friday that the trial court had permitted the defense to pose objectionable questions to the survivor during the trial of Tehelka founder Tarun Tejpal in the alleged rape case. The survivor had accused Tejpal of raping her in a hotel elevator in November 2013. The High Court is currently hearing the state's appeal against Tejpal's acquittal by a sessions court in 2021.
Objectionable Questions During Cross-Examination
Mehta read out the questions asked to the survivor during cross-examination regarding her character and friendships, which prompted the division bench to express that it was “deeply anguished.” The bench observed orally, “We are extremely sorry to say it is as if the survivor herself is on trial. We are deeply anguished by these questions.... repeatedly the same question again and again.... it appears the survivor is on trial here.”
Court's Role in Recording Evidence
Mehta referred to a judgment stating that while recording evidence, the court is not supposed to sit quietly like a post office or a tape recorder but must intervene and cannot allow such questions to be posed. He emphasized that the survivor was of “sterling character” and remained steadfast in her statement from day one despite being posed luring questions during cross-examination. “She was virtually put on trial as if she was a woman of easy virtue and that she was trying to instigate the accused to do all these things,” the Solicitor General said, adding that Tejpal kept changing his statement.
Survivor's Initial Reluctance to Escalate
Mehta stated that the survivor did not want to escalate the matter with a police investigation and instead wanted an internal inquiry to be carried out. However, the Women's Commission took up the issue when it started gaining publicity and directed the Goa police to register a suo motu case. “This shows her innocence and lack of any other personal ill will against Tejpal, except the anger as her bodily integrity was violated. There is no possibility of her acting as a persecutor to anyhow persecute and punish Tejpal. She never wanted this but once police took cognisance she came forward and steadfastly maintained her statement,” Mehta told the High Court.
Tejpal's Changing Statements
The Solicitor General said that Tejpal contended he merely signed the officially drafted apology and that it does not amount to his admission. However, Mehta read out the communication and said the official draft apology was sent to Tejpal, which he edited, thereby applying his mind to the case. Additionally, Tejpal sent another personal apology to the survivor. Mehta argued that a person who has not committed the offence would have said that the draft letter was wrong, but instead Tejpal said it was consensual and kept changing his statement, while the survivor said it was not consensual and remained consistent in her statement.
Stay updated with the latest Goa news. Download the TOI App.
