ON AUGUST 6, 2026, the Bombay High Court’s Goa Bench set aside the acquittal of Tarun Tejpal in the 2013 rape and sexual assault case involving a female journalist employed at Tehelka. A division bench of Justices Neela Gokhale and Amit Jamsandekar convicted the magazine’s founder and ex-editor-in-chief under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(k) (rape by a person in a position of trust or authority), 354A, and 354B (outraging modesty and sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and and imposed concurrent sentences, including ten years’ rigorous imprisonment.
The case dates back to 2013 where Tejpal had on two occasions allegedly wrongfully restrained his young collegue and raped and sexually assaulted her. On May 21, 2021, the District and Sessions Court in Panaji, presided over by Justice Kshama Joshi, had acquitted Tejpal of all charges citing shortcomings in the investigation conducted by the investigating officer and failure to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
Allegations against Tejpal
The alleged incidents took place on two nights during the THiNK Fest event organised by Tehelka at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Bambolim, Goa, between November 7 and 11, 2013. Tejpal allegedly took the prosecutrix into the guest lifts on two distinct occasions and used force to wrongfully restrain her and committed acts of sexual harassment and rape, including forcible kissing, lifting of dress, and digital and oral penetration. The prosecutrix stated that she was also told this was the “easiest way” for her to keep her job.
Immediately after the first incident, the prosecutrix had met with three colleagues and informed them she had been sexually assaulted. She also spoke with her partner via phone. Despite the alleged trauma, she continued her professional duties for the remainder of the festival to avoid financial distress or the loss of her job.
On November 18, 2013, a detailed email narrating the events was sent by her to the Managing Editor of Tehelka, Shoma Chaudhary, demanding an inquiry and an apology. Following this, Tejpal wrote to the victim stating, “I apologise unconditionally for the shameful lapse of judgement that led me to attempt a sexual liaison with you on two occasions on November 7 and November 8 2013, despite your clear reluctance that you did not want such attention from me.”
He also wrote to Chaudhry and called the incident a bad lapse of judgement and a misreading of the situation.
After over seven years of the alleged incident, the Trial Court had concluded that the prosecution had failed to discharge the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. According to Justice Joshi, the prosecutrix’s testimony was not of “sterling quality.”
The victim had however insisted setting up an anti-sexual harassment cell to investigate the matter and Tejpal eventually stepped down as editor for six-months to allow a fair internal inquiry. However, since the allegations were widely reported in national media, the National
Commission for Women a sou motu cognizance and later the Police registered a complaint and a FIR was filed.
Tejpal, however, alleged that he was being falsely implicated in the case at the behest of the BJP-led government in Goa. Tejpal’s Tehelka has published several high-profile investigative reports which examined the Gujarat riots and bribery scandal involving the BJP-led NDA government.
Tejpal was arrested on November 30, 2013 after his application for anticipatory bail was rejected. He was granted regular bail by the Supreme Court in July 2014. In February 2014, the Goa Police Crime Branch filed a 2,846-page chargesheet against him.
In 2017 the Sessions trial finally began. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined seventy-one witnesses, while the defence examined four witnesses.
What did the Sessions Court rule?
After over seven years of the alleged incident, in a judgment spanning over 527 pages, Justice Joshi on May 21, 2021 concluded that the prosecution had failed to discharge the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and noted major lapses in investigation and contradictions/ improvements in testimony of the prosecutrix.
Drawing on a catena of Supreme Court precedents, the Court ruled that while a conviction for rape can be based on the solitary testimony of the victim, that testimony must be unassailable, consistent from the initial statement to the trial, and free from material prevarication. According to Justice Joshi, the prosecutrix’s testimony was not of “sterling quality.”
While the Sessions Court had focused on the victim’s composure to doubt her account, the High Court held that her clear testimony of non-consent was legally sufficient under this statutory mandate.
While Section 114A of the Evidence Act, it said, provides a presumption of non-consent if the victim states in court that she did not consent, this presumption only applies when the prosecution has first established the factum of the act itself through reliable evidence. If a victim’s narrative suffers from serious infirmities, her testimony cannot be accepted as the gospel truth without corroboration.
The Court observed that while the prosecutrix claimed to be in shock and trauma after exiting the lift on 7 November 2013, the footage showed her composure to be normal. The court noted she was seen smiling and requested the accused to join her for a photograph on the final day of the festival, which it viewed as conduct inconsistent with that of a victim of recent sexual assault.
The judgment reads:
“...the scrutiny of prosecutrix's evidence reveals several discrepancies/changes in her versions, spanning from her email to Ishan dated 16/11/13, her complaint to Shoma dated 18/11/13, her 161 CR.P.C. statement, her 164 CR.P.C. statement, examination-in-chief, and cross-examination, each constituting either material omissions and contradictions or improvements in her original narrative which is given and continually shifting details of the account she has proferred. Further, the evidence in this case, in the form of CCTV footage shows the prosecutrix's narrative to be a change about the events that preceded their entry and followed their exit from the lifts on both days. The CCTV footage shows a change to the prosecutrix's narrative both of the physical circumstances of the moments and of her claims of distress, tears, trauma and resistance. There are material contradictions and ommissions and inconsistent statements in the deposition of the victim brought on record in cross-examination of PW1 which make her testimony of not of sterling quality to base the conviction only on her testimony.”
Regarding the apology emails, the Court applied Section 24 of the Evidence Act, which renders a confession irrelevant if it is caused by inducement, threat, or promise from a person in authority. It concluded that since the apologies were drafted under pressure from organizational superiors to provide closure for the institution, they were involuntary and could not be used as evidence of guilt against the accused.
The court also identified significant flaws in the police investigation including non-preservation of CCTV footages on some floors by the Investigating Officer and failure to verify whether the lift could be stalled or the doors kept closed using the buttons at the time of the incident. It held that an investigation must be unbiased and aimed at bringing out the entire truth under Article 21 and that the selective preservation of evidence constituted a violation of the accused’s constitutional rights, necessitating that he be given the benefit of the doubt.
Tejpal was acquitted of rape (376(2)(f), 376(2)(k)), sexual harassment (354A), assault with intent to disrobe (354B), and wrongful restraint/confinement (341, 342)
Appeals filed
An appeal was filed by the State and it was argued that the Sessions Court had improperly focused on the complainant’s post-incident conduct, reactions, and personal background rather than objectively evaluating the evidence on record. The State argued that the highly invasive questioning and aggressive attacks on the prosecutrix’s character made it seem as though “the victim and not the Respondent [was] on trial.”
Appearing for Tejpal, Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda defended the acquittal, submitting that the Sessions Court’s judgment was well reasoned and founded on objective electronic evidence.
What did the High Court rule?
Allowing the States appeal, the High Court yesterday reversed the acquittal holding that interference is legally mandated when a lower court’s judgment is based on a misreading or omission of material evidence. “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,” the Division bench judgment reads.
The Court also found a misapplication of core legal principles by the Sessions Court. At the outset, the Court rapped the Sessions Court centering its analysis on the prosecutrix’s moral character, personal life, and post-incident conduct rather than the evidence against the accused.
“What struck us most was the Court's noticeable silence during PW-1's cross-examination by the defence. We find it surprising that the Court allowed the defence to use this time to harass and humiliate her. It appears the Court overlooked that the victim, having already faced trauma, might feel too ashamed, nervous, or confused to respond clearly when questioned repeatedly in an unfamiliar environment,” the judgment reads.
The High Court ruled that the Trial Court committed a fatal flaw by failing to apply the rule of mandatory presumption. Reliance was placed on State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh (1996); State of Himachal Pradesh v. Asha Ram (2005) and the Court ruled,
“We bear in mind that a case of sexual assault must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, as in any other case, and there is no presumption that the victim will always tell the entire truth. However, the standard of proof expected in such cases must take into account that such crimes are generally committed on the sly, and that direct evidence from a person other than the victim is very rarely available.”
While the Sessions Court had focused on the victim’s composure to doubt her account, the High Court held that her clear testimony of non-consent was legally sufficient under this statutory mandate.
“It appears the [Sessions] Court overlooked that the victim, having already faced trauma, might feel too ashamed, nervous, or confused to respond clearly when questioned repeatedly in an unfamiliar environment,” the High Court judgment reads.
The Court also observes that in the CCTV footage the accused is seen pulling prosecutrix’s hand and entering the lift and after leaving the lift, she is seen adjusting her dress and tying her hair. It invoked State of Maharashtra v Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain (1990), to affirm that insisting on corroboration, except in the rarest of rare cases, equates a woman who is a victim of lust by
another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insults womanhood.
“We thus have no hesitation in accepting her testimony on the core spectrum of the offence, even without any corroboration. There is no compelling reason that necessitates looking for corroboration of her statement. Her testimony thus inspires confidence and is found to be reliable,” the judgment reads.
The Court also held that the apology emails by Tejpal were clear admissions of misconduct and rejected the defence claim that the emails were coerced by organisational superiors. It ruled that no person of reasonable prudence would falsely apologise for such an incident, and the emails were sent from Tejpal’s personal device, ruling out tampering.
Justices Neela Gokhale and Amit Jamsandekar also called out the ‘perfect victim’ construct, which it described as a myth and an unspoken cultural archetype. Credibility, the Court said, must be evaluated based on the facts of the assault and not on whether a survivor fits a narrow cultural mould of absolute vulnerability or total passivity.
“Rather than evaluating the sterling case presented by the prosecution with the requisite judicial sobriety, the Trial Court resorted to hyper-technicalities, ignored binding Supreme Court guidelines on assessing sexual assault evidence, and unjustifiably granted the benefit of the doubt to the Respondent where none reasonably existed.”
The acquittal was set aside. For both charges of rape by a person in a position of trust or dominance, Tejpal is sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- for each count. He was further sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a Rs. 10,000 fine under Section 354B IPC (Assault with Intent to Disrobe); one year’s rigorous imprisonment each under Sections 354 and 354A IPC (Outraging Modesty and Sexual Harassment’ while fines of Rs. 500 each were imposed for the offences of wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement; all sentences are directed to run concurrently.
The High Court granted Tejpal four weeks to surrender to the authorities. Meanwhile, reacting to the judgment, Tejpal has said he would challenge the conviction in the Supreme Court.