2013 rape case: Setback for Tarun Tejpal as SC refuses to suspend 10-year prison sentence
New Delhi: In a major setback for journalist Tarun Tejpal, the Supreme Court on Friday rrefused to suspend the 10-year prison sentence on him in a 2013 rape case. A bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale stated that they were not inclined to grant a stay on the sentence.
During the hearing on the petition to stay the sentence, the bench remarked, “We do not believe this is a case where the sentence should be stayed.” Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Tejpal, cited evidence and other documents from the case, arguing that “the entire story is false.”
High Court overturned trial court’s verdict
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Goa government, opposed Tejpal’s petition, arguing that this was, in fact, a case where the sentence should be enhanced. Previously, on August 6, the Bombay High Court had convicted Tarun Tejpal of rape and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment, overturning a trial court’s earlier decision that had acquitted him five years prior.
Tejpal was found guilty of raping a junior colleague inside a hotel elevator during an event organized by the magazine in Goa in 2013. The 62-year-old journalist claims that he has been targeted out of a political vendetta.
Supreme Court’s ruling in August
Following the High Court’s verdict, the matter reached the Supreme Court. In an order dated August 25, the Supreme Court directed the former editor to surrender within three weeks to serve his 10-year sentence, while also dismissing his plea seeking an exemption from surrendering. Faced with the court’s firm stance, Tejpal was compelled to surrender before the trial court. Tarun Tejpal was convicted of rape under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 376(2)(f) (rape by a person in a position of trust or authority), Section 354(A) (sexual harassment), and Section 354(B) (assault or use of criminal force with the intent to disrobe). Under Section 376(2)(f), the maximum punishment is life imprisonment.
On August 20, Tejpal approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court order that upheld his conviction. Meanwhile, the Goa government has also filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, seeking an enhancement of Tejpal’s sentence. The government argues that the case warrants a sentence of life imprisonment.
In its petition to the Supreme Court, the Goa government stated that the sentence handed down by the High Court is disproportionately lenient, given the nature and gravity of the crimes committed by Tejpal. In its 81-page judgment, the High Court described the trial court’s 2021 order as “erroneous and improper.”
The High Court observed that the trial court had operated under the assumption that a woman complaining of sexual harassment must be an “ideal victim” and must behave in a specific manner to be considered credible. The High Court also expressed strong objection to the fact that the defense placed the victim herself on trial, questioning aspects of her private life.
Furthermore, the Court expressed surprise that the trial court remained “silent, effectively granting the defense full liberty to harass and humiliate the victim during cross-examination.”