The High Court of Bombay at Goa on Thursday quashed and set aside the judgment of the trial court delivered in May 2021 acquitting former Tehelka Editor-in-Chief Tarun Tejpal, finding him guilty of rape and aggravated sexual assault against a former junior colleague.

The High Court allowed the State of Goa’s appeal against the trial court's verdict and sentenced the 63-year-old former journalist Tarun Tejpal to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with fines totaling ₹10.21 lakh. The High Court found Tejpal guilty for aggravated rape by a person in a position of trust, control, or authority, outraging modesty, sexual harassment, assault to disrobe, wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement. The High Court has clarified that all the sentences will run concurrently, leading to a maximum of 10 years of imprisonment and the entire fine amount, once deposited, be disbursed to the victim. Tejpal has been granted four weeks to surrender before authorities, allowing him time to appeal the judgment before the Supreme Court.

The case dates back to November 7 and 8, 2013, during Tehelka’s annual 'THiNK Fest' organized at a starred hotel in Bambolim. The victim, who was then working as a Principal Correspondent, alleged that Tejpal sexually assaulted her twice inside a hotel elevator while she was chaperoning chief guest Robert De Niro.

After the incident surfaced through internal e-mails and media reports, Goa Police registered an FIR against Tejpal on November 22, 2013. Following a lengthy trial, the Additional Sessions Judge at Mapusa acquitted Tejpal in May 2021, giving him the benefit of the doubt and citing inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and post-event behavior.
The Goa government subsequently filed an appeal before the High Court, contending that the trial court's order was perverse.

The High Court, in its judgment, severely criticized the trial court for putting the victim on trial instead of evaluating the evidence objectively. The High Court further observed that "Credibility must be evaluated on facts, not on whether a survivor fits a narrow cultural mould."

Describes an unspoken cultural archetype where a person is fully believed, sympathised with and granted legitimacy only if they exhibit absolute vulnerability, complete innocence and total passivity," the High Court noted, calling the archetype a myth.

The High Court observed that the trial court misapplied legal principles by drawing negative inferences from the victim's composure, her decision to continue performing her duties, her past relationships, and private messages with friends. The High Court reiterated that a victim's past character or lack of physical resistance does not diminish the gravity of non-consensual sexual acts.

The High Court held that the victim's deposition was natural, consistent, and of "sterling quality". Her testimony was strongly corroborated by prompt disclosures to seven prosecution witnesses—including her colleagues, partner, and mother—as well as contemporaneous e-mail trails.

While there was no camera inside the elevator, hotel CCTV footage confirmed the presence of both Tejpal and the victim at the precise location and time described. The court rejected the defence’s claims regarding lift door mechanisms, noting that it was entirely possible for Tejpal to keep the doors closed by manipulating the panel controls.

The court rejected the defence's argument that Tejpal’s apology e-mails dated November 19, 2013—where he referred to a "shameful lapse of judgment" and "attempted sexual liaison"—were issued under coercion. The High Court observed that no person of reasonable prudence, especially someone in Tejpal's position as Editor-in-Chief, would falsely issue such formal and personal apologies if no encounter had occurred.

The High Court dismissed claims that the victim sought to extort a severance package or falsely implicate Tejpal. It ruled that her discussions regarding severance packages with legal counsel and friends were a natural response to losing her job and livelihood due to workplace harassment.

During sentencing arguments, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stressed the gravity of workplace abuse by an authority figure, arguing "no means no". In contrast, Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, representing Tejpal, urged leniency citing his age, clean record since acquittal, and status as a first-time offender.

Addressing the court, Tejpal described himself as a "political victim". Taking note of the fact that 13 years had passed since the incident and considering his age, the High Court handed down the minimum prescribed sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment for aggravated rape.