BREAKING| Supreme Court Refuses To Suspend Tarun Tejpal's Sentence In Rape Case

Arguments of Tarun Tejpal

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, for Tejpal, submitted that the allegation was that Tejpal knelt down in the elevator and pressed its buttons to make sure its doors did not open while he was sexually assaulting the victim by oral penetration. Sibal however said that there was evidence to show that the doors opened. In the 2 minutes 9 seconds of the alleged offence, the lift opened at every floor as per technical experts, Sibal said. However, the High Court has not dealt with this aspect.

"During that 2 minutes 9 seconds, the lift door opened two times at the ground floor. Her case was that it did not open and had it opened, she would have run out," Sibal said. He said that the footage which would have shown that the lift doors opened was destroyed.

"The whole story is false," Sibal said, referring to the testimony of the Grand Hyatt hotel manager and Mitsubishi staff who said the lift automatically opened on reaching every floor, and that its doors cannot be kept closed by pressing the buttons. He contended that these statements destroy the basic case of the victim.

The Investigating Officer, despite viewing the CCTV footage which contradicted the victim's version, did not take efforts to seize it.

Sibal further said that as soon as she came out of the lift, she had met one Nikhil Agarwal, and this was mentioned in her email. However, in the complaint, the reference to Nikhil Agarwal was deleted. Yet, the IO did not contact Nikhil Agarwal.

Nikhil Agarwal, on his examination as Defence Witness, said that the victim was smiling, grinned at him, and was looking excited. "I have some gossip to tell, guess whom I have been flirting with?" the victim allegedly told Agarwal. When Agarwal asked who it was, the victim allegedly said, "TT", referring to Tarun Tejpal.

Highlighting that it was a case of reversal of acquittal, Sibal said that the normal course in such cases is to suspend the sentence.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, also for Tejpal, submitted that there were six documented versions of the victim herself before the FIR was lodged on November 22, nearly two weeks after the alleged offence. In none of those documented versions was there any reference to rape. In one version, she said Tejpal flirted with her; in another it is said he tried to kiss; in the next, it was said he kissed; but in none of those documents was there an allegation of oral penetration.

Agarwal added that throughout the period of trial, Tejpal was on bail, and he never misused his liberty.

State of Goa opposes

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, for the State of Goa, submitted that Sibal's arguments were irrelevant. He highlighted that Tejpal was the owner of the magazine where the victim was working. Also, she was Tejpal's daughter's friend.

SG added that there are testimonies of colleagues of the victim stating that they saw her crying profusely. Also, at 1.30 AM following the night of the incident, Tejpal sent a message to the victim : "Fingertips".

"Imagine a person sending the message to a girl of daughter's age. What does that message implicate? It can have only the meaning the High Court found," Mehta said.

Mehta then referred to the apology email sent by Tejpal to the victim after she raised the issue with the Magazine's then editor Shoma Chaudhary. The apology letter would make all arguments on whether the lift door opened irrelevant.

Mehta read out the contents of the email to the bench, and highlighted the portion -"It was in the frivolous and laughing mode that the encounter took place". In the email, Tejpal stated that he had no idea it was non-consensual till his daughter confronted him after the victim complained to her about the incident.

The SG further said that the Trial Court's judgement essentially put the victim on trial, and was about how an "ideal victim" should behave.

Refuting the Solicitor, Sibal stated that the apology was actually drafted by Shoma. SG however, said that the apology was directly sent by Tejpal to the victim.

Sibal read out Shoma's testimony that the apology was sent in a state of panic after the pressure exerted by the victim. "I apologised only about the conversation. That's just for banter. That's not for rape," Sibal said, claiming that the "encounter" referred to a flirtatious conversation they had about sex and fidelity.

He added that "Fingertips" was in reference to a Bob Geldof story and was sent in response to her earlier query to take a guess whether she preferred the tongue or the finger.

The bench was however not persuaded by the arguments of Tejpal for suspension. In the order, the bench observed :

"We are concerned with the suspension of sentence alone. Though it is contended that the material on record, on a prima facie view, particularly the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, read with the materials produced with specific reference to the emails and messages taken on record, we do not find it is a fit case to grant suspension of sentence. On a prima facie view, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence."

 Background