The Bombay High Court has held that the trial court’s acquittal of former Tehelka editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal in the 2013 rape case was “perverse”, “untenable” and based on an unreasonable appreciation of evidence, saying the prosecution had proved its case beyond every reasonable doubt.
Setting aside the acquittal, the High Court found that the trial court committed multiple errors in assessing the victim’s testimony and documentary evidence, relied on stereotypical assumptions about how a sexual assault survivor should behave, and ignored binding Supreme Court precedents governing the appreciation of evidence in rape cases.
The High Court also held that the victim had made truthful statements and that the prosecution had established its case against Tejpal beyond every reasonable doubt. It concluded that the trial court’s view was not a possible one in light of the evidence on record.
WHY BOMBAY HC OVERTURNED TRIAL COURT ACQUITTAL
The Trial Court’s findings are directly contrary to the evidence on record and thus per se perverse.
The Trial Court’s evaluation of the victim’s testimony and evidence exhibits multiple fatal flaws, largely stemming from preconceived notions and reliance on irrelevant or inadmissible material.
The Trial Court drew unfounded negative inferences regarding her lack of visible physical injuries, her physical response, or her failure to lower her chin to avoid being forcibly kissed or to scratch her attacker.
In doing so, the Court relied on stereotypical assumptions about how an “ideal” victim should physically resist or emotionally react, going so far as to hold her smiling demeanour during subsequent work events against her.
The Trial Court has also erred in observing that there was no whisper of admission of sexual assault or any of its attributes in the apology e-mails. The apology e-mails, in fact, clearly relate to an ‘encounter’, ‘sexual liaison’ and ‘furtive acts’, in respect of which the Respondent issued two apologies – one formal and the other personal.
Most glaringly, the Court permitted an invasive, humiliating cross-examination into the victim’s past sexual history, moral views, and personal WhatsApp messages… The Trial Court appears to be influenced by extraneous, inadmissible material and testimony, including graphic details of the victim’s past sexual history…
The Court incorrectly drew adverse inferences from the victim consulting an NGO and legal counsel, treating it as a potential fabrication… The Trial Court failed to appreciate that the victim, a young professional woman, was pitted against the might of the Respondent and his organisation.
We find that the victim has made truthful statements, and the prosecution has established the case against the Respondent beyond every reasonable doubt.
The appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court is not only unreasonable but perverse. The conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court are untenable and, in the established facts and circumstances of the case, the view expressed by it is not a possible view.
WORKPLACE SEXUAL HARASSMENT HARMS WOMEN’S CAREERS: HC
While discussing sentencing, the High Court observed that sexual harassment at the workplace causes significant and enduring harm to women’s career paths by punishing them for factors beyond their control. It said a widespread culture of victim blaming and institutional resistance isolates survivors, often forcing them to change jobs or accept demotions.
The court further observed that an insensitive and unresponsive work environment instils fear in women about pursuing meaningful opportunities, preventing them from fully utilising their talents and skills.
Referring to the present case, the High Court said the victim suffered similar consequences. She was compelled to resign and also suffered profound embarrassment during the trial.
– Ends
Published By:
Prateek Chakraborty
Published On:
Aug 6, 2026 15:45 IST
