SC refuses to suspend Tarun Tejpal's 10-year sentence in 2013 rape case

NEW DELHI: In a setback to journalist Tarun Tejpal, the Supreme Court on Friday refused to suspend the 10-year sentence handed down to him in a 2013 rape case.

A bench of justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale dismissed Tejpal's application seeking suspension of the sentence by the Bombay High Court.

"From the above, we cannot say that there was a motive on the part of the prosecutrix to implicate the applicant (Tejpal). In such view of the matter, on a prima facie view, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence of the applicant," the bench said.

It noted that the victim was working under Tejpal.

The bench said her father and Tejpal were friends and similarly, she and Tejpal's daughter were also friends.

"Though, it is contended on behalf of the applicant that the trial court has considered the material available on record while rendering an acquittal, on a prima facie view, particularly, with respect to the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, read with the material produced on record with specific reference to the apology emails and text message (s), we do not find that it is a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence," it said.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Tejpal, referred to the evidence and other materials in the case and argued that the "whole story is false".

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Goa government, opposed Tejpal's plea and said it is a case for enhancing the sentence.

On August 6, the Bombay High Court convicted Tejpal of rape and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, overturning the acquittal of the former editor of Tehelka magazine by the trial court five years ago.

He was convicted of raping the junior colleague during an event organised by the magazine in Goa. The 62-year-old journalist has claimed that he was a victim of political vendetta.

On August 25, the top court had directed Tejpal to surrender within three weeks to undergo his 10-year prison sentence and had dismissed his application seeking exemption from surrendering. Subsequently, Tejpal surrendered before the trial court.

During the hearing on Friday, Sibal questioned the prosecution's case and also the victim's account about the incident.

He argued that according to the prosecution, the door of the elevator did not open for two minutes and nine seconds during the alleged incident.

Sibal said there was evidence to show that the elevator door opened twice at the ground floor during that period.

"The whole story is false," he said.

Senior advocate Siddharth Agarwal, who also appeared for Tejpal, said there were six documented versions of the victim prior to the registration of FIR in the case and in none of them, there was any reference of rape.

Tejpal's counsel argued that evidence with respect to CCTV footage and the fact that the lift in which the occurrence is stated to have happened opens automatically whenever it stops, have not been duly taken into consideration.

Countering their submissions, Mehta said Tejpal was the owner of the magazine and the victim was an employee there.

"When this unfortunate incident happened in the lift, she (victim) thereafter rushed to her room where her other colleagues were there," he said.

Mehta said there were statements of her colleagues that she was crying profusely.

"It is a case for enhancement of sentence," the top law officer said.

He said the apology emails, coupled with the text messages sent by Tejpal, if read along with the ocular version of the prosecution witnesses, would clearly show that the occurrence has happened, as projected by the prosecution.

While dismissing the application, the bench said the appeals filed by Tejpal and the state would be listed for hearing in the due course.

Tejpal was convicted under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 376(2)(f) (rape committed by a person in a position of trust or authority), 354(a) (sexual harassment) and 354(b) (assault or use of criminal force with intent to disrobe).

Under Section 376(2)(f), the maximum punishment is life imprisonment.

On August 20, Tejpal moved the top court, challenging the high court order convicting him in the case.

The Goa government has also approached the apex court seeking an enhanced sentence for Tejpal, contending that the case warranted imprisonment for life.

In its petition, the Goa government has contended that the sentence imposed by the high court was grossly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offences committed by Tejpal.

In its 81-page judgement, the high court had termed the trial court's 2021 order "perverse", noting that it fell for the notion that a sexual assault complainant must be a "perfect victim" and should conduct herself in a certain way to appear credible.

The high court also expressed strong disapproval of the way the defence put the victim in the dock and focused on her personal life, and said it found it surprising that the trial court "remained silent and allowed the defence to harass and humiliate her during the cross-examination".