'Perfect Victim' In Rape Cases Is A Myth; Women Deal With Trauma In Different Ways : Bombay High Court In Tarun Tejpal Case

While convicting former Editor-in-Chief of Tehelka magazine Tarun Tejpal in a 2013 rape case, on August 6, the Bombay High Court bench at Goa, busted the 'stereotypical myth' that victims of sexual offences must behave or conduct themselves in a particular manner and behave like a 'perfect victim' by exhibiting vulnerability for the courts to 'believe' her woes. 

A division bench of Justice Dr Neela Gokhale and Justice Amit Jamsandekar in its judgment criticised the trial court for not accepting the victim's testimony and rather believing in Tejpal's contention that the victim was a woman of a loose character.

The bench noted that during the cross- examination, the victim was shamed, and her personal life, including her text messages, e-mails, and photographs from the past few years, were laid bare in public view. She was confronted with text messages exchanged between her and her intimate friends to humiliate and lower her dignity in the Court, the judges noted. 

"Admittedly, the victim appears to be a free- spirited woman with little inhibition while interacting with her close friends. She also appears to have had several relationships in the past. Her way of life was magnified to declare her a promiscuous woman and a libertine. It is well settled law that even if a victim is accused of immoral character, it does not give the accused any right to rape her," the judges observed.

The judges noted submissions of senior advocate Aabad Ponda, appearing for Tejpal, who highlighted various photographs post the incident, one which purportedly showed the victim with a glass of wine at the party and another showed her posing with Hollywood celebrity (at Tehelka's event) and Tejpal. Further she was questioned about her alleged sexual liaison with a Russian national, with whom she was photographed near a beach, post the incident. He argued that the victim's conduct after the incident, of not leaving the company's event and staying back calmly participating in the event, and then further staying back in Goa for some more days, etc clearly showed that she was not under trauma and thus falsified her claim of having been raped by her senior. 

The judgment, authored by Justice Gokhale, criticised the Trial Court for proceeding on a notion that a victim of sexual assault must behave in a stereotypical manner.

"The victim was to be a perfect victim and only then could the Courts believe her story of woe. The 'perfect victim' concept, more formally known as an 'ideal victim', 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. When a survivor does not fit in this mould – such as delaying a report, knowing the attacker or being under the influence of alcohol - their trauma is normally devalued. Expecting a survivor to be constantly miserable, meek or visibly broken, the Trial Court has ignored the reality of human coping mechanisms. However, these concepts of a perfect victim are a myth. Credibility must be evaluated on facts, not on whether a survivor fits a narrow cultural mould," Justice Gokhale wrote. 

Further the judges pointed out that the victim in the present case was a young, educated journalist, who accomplished in her chosen profession and was financially independent. Neither the Court nor the accused can decide how she should react or process her trauma, the bench said. 

"We believe in her plight as a victim who has suffered sexual assault by her superior, whom she has known for many years as her father's friend, her employer, her mentor, and her friend's father. She has suffered the uncertainty of losing her job on account of the Respondent's misconduct. Her story was challenged on the ground that she continued her duties at the Company's event and, in fact, may even have danced in the club and had a glass of wine. Merely because the victim continued to remain at the event venue post the incident does not take away her sexual assault trauma. Many persons deal with trauma in different ways. To doubt her credibility on the basis of her refusing to abandon event and lose an opportunity to chaperone the Hollywood star (Guest at the event) would be a great injustice to the victim, in the face of other material corroborating her story. She need not have abandoned her job, suffered ignominy, or faced isolation on account of the Tejpal's wrongdoings. We are thus unable to align with Mr Ponda's arguments that the victim's prior and post-incident conduct demolishes her story of being sexually assaulted," the judges made it clear. 

The bench noted that during the victim's entire cross-examination, she was ashamed and it appeared as if the victim was at a trial and not the accused Tejpal. It noted that most of the 1000 pages of the cross-examination, she was asked very much personal questions attacking her character.

"What struck us most was the Court's noticeable silence during the victim'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. Her silence or a confused remark could be wrongly interpreted as contradictions in her testimony. Despite nearly 1000 pages of invasive questions designed to shake her, she remained consistent and steadfast, with no contradictions in her account," the judges noted. 

The judges further said that the testimony of the victim and all other relevant witnesses including her friends, mother, stepmother etc corroborated her version of the case.

"In our view, the victim's version qualifies the test of high quality and calibre, and thus we can safely hold that her testimony is sterling. 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 bench held. 

Trial Court Findings 'Perverse'

The bench in its order criticised the Trial Court's findings to be directly contrary to the evidence on record and thus per se perverse. It held that the Trial Court's evaluation of the victim's testimony and evidence exhibited multiple fatal flaws, largely stemming from preconceived notions and reliance on irrelevant or inadmissible material.

"Furthermore, the Court misconstrued the disclosures made to her colleagues and mother as suspect or failing to corroborate rape, completely ignoring that she confided in close friends and family without intending them to be formal disclosure statements. The Trial Court similarly misread her inability to open a seven-year-old e-mail account on court hardware after surrendering her phone to the police as a sign of untrustworthiness, and 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 judges said. 

Most glaringly, Justice Gokhale wrote, the Trial Court permitted an invasive, humiliating cross-examination into the victim's past sexual history, moral views, and personal WhatsApp messages, directly violating statutory embargoes under the Indian Evidence Act that prohibit questioning a victim's character or past relationships.

"The Trial Court appears to be influenced by extraneous, inadmissible material and testimony, including graphic details of the victim's past sexual history, which are prohibited by law, and used them to censure her character and discredit her evidence," the judge held. 

Apologies Show Tejpal's Admission To Crime

The judges noted that after the victim lodged initial complaint with her company's then managing editor Shoma Chaudhary, Tejpal sent two emails, one marking to the company's authorities and one sent personally to the victim, apologising for what he claimed to be a 'lapse of judgment that led him to attempt a sexual liaison with the victim on two occasions.' It dismissed the argument put forth by Ponda that the two apology emails were sent after he was coerced by Shoma and his own sister, with a view to resolve the entire issue. 

"As Editor-in-Chief of Tehelka, the accused was a powerful figure. He claims he never met the victim before she joined Tehelka and considers her just one of many staff members handling minor tasks. Yet he issued two e-mails admitting guilt and offering apologies, which is inconsistent with his denial. The personal apology depicts the victim negatively, describing her as flirtatious and sexually provocative, and he describes their interactions as secretive. If he truly sent the e-mail solely under pressure, why did he also send a formal apology to her, with a copy to Shoma and then step down as Editor-in-Chief for six months? No person of reasonable prudence would apologise falsely for such an incident, especially someone like him," the judges held. 

Extortion

The bench also dismissed and rejected the argument that the victim purposely delayed to lodge formal complaint against Tejpal as she was trying to 'extort' big amounts from Tehelka company. To buttress his case, Ponda referred to various chats between the victim and her mother, her friends and senior lawyer Rebecca John, who suggested her to claim for 'severance' package before leaving. The bench however, said that Ponda did not read out the entire messages but only 'selective' parts of the chats to suit his version of the case. 

"The victim lost her job and source of income due to Tejpal's misconduct and sexual harassment. She had every right to demand a severance package and compensation. This cannot be construed as an intent to extort merely because she indicated her unwillingness to prosecute him. In fact, as the State has taken pains to point out, the victim had no motive to malign or defame Tejpal. Her only intention, as seen from the material on record, was to ensure that Tehelka establishes an ICC as per the Visakha Guidelines and inquire into his behaviour. We are of the view that she is well within her rights to claim compensation and a severance package from Tehelka, and the same cannot be construed as an intent to extort," the bench held. 

Tejpal's Control and Dominance

The judges noted that Tejpal being a boss, had all the control and dominance over the victim at the relevant time and pointed out that before complaining about the incident to the company's authorities and also the police, the victim was afraid of losing her job.

"Even during his cross-examination, he (Tejpal) maintained that the victim was worried that if she left the event, he would use it as an excuse to terminate her services. Hence, she continued to perform her duties and pretended as if everything was alright. The victim's mother, also corroborated that the victim was scared of him, as he was very powerful and politically connected. The mother also deposed that the victim told him and other friends that she was reluctant to go to the police because she knew that Tejpal was very influential and a powerful man, and that she would lose her job and suffer consequences. He too remained firm in his testimony and could not be contradicted during his cross-examination. This shows that he, in his position as an employer, had control and dominance over her," the judges noted.

With these observations, the bench convicted Tejpal.

Appearance:

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta along with Advocate General Devidas Pangam and assisted by Public Prosecutors SG Bhobe and Cyndiana Silva and Additional Public Prosecutors Pravin Faldessai and Nikhil Vaze and Additional Government Advocates Maria Simone Correia, Shubham Priolkar, Neehal Vernekar, Eshan Jacques and Ajay Borkar appeared for the State. 

Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda along with Advocates Subash Jadhav, Raunaq Rao and Tabitha Souto represented Tarun Tejpal. 

Case Title: State of Goa vs Tarun Tejpal (Criminal Appeal 16 of 2022)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 366

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment