Bombay High Court sentences Tarun Tejpal to 10 years in jail in 2013 rape case

The Bombay High Court on Thursday sentenced former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal to ten years in jail in a 2013 rape case [State of Goa v. Tarunjit Tejpal & Anr].

A division bench of Justices Neela Gokhale and Amit Jamsandekar also imposed a fine of more than ₹10 lakh on Tejpal.

"The court should consider the fact that there was no remorse and offence was repeated despite a no from the victim," the Bench recorded the State's submission.

It also took into account the mitigating factors before handing down the 10-year-jail sentence.

"The incident took place 13 yrs ago. There is no report of misconduct or allegation. Both parties must have moved on in life," the Court said.

He was granted two weeks to surrender before jail authorities.

The Court pronounced the sentence on an appeal filed by State of Goa in 2022.

The High Court had earlier overturned his acquittal by the trial court and found him guilty of rape and sexual harassment under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

It then heard him on sentencing before pronouncing its verdict at 2.30 pm on Thursday.

The following are the sentences imposed on him for various offences:

- for Section 376(2)(f) - rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and ₹5 lakh fine;

- for Section 376(2)(k) - 10 years imprisonment and ₹5 lakh fine;

- for Section 354 - rigorous imprisonment of 1 year and ₹10,000 fine;

- for Section 354A - rigorous imprisonment of 1 year;

- for Section 354B - rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and ₹10,000 fine;

- for Section 341 - fine of ₹500;

- for Section 342 - fine of ₹500.

All sentences will run concurrently which would mean that Tejpal will spend a total of 10 years in prison.

Section 376(2)(f) criminalises rape by a relative, guardian or teacher or a person in a position of trust or authority towards the woman.

Section 376(2)(k) criminalises rape by a man in a position of control or dominance over a woman.

Section 354 criminalises assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.

Section 354A criminalises sexual harassment which could be physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures or a demand or request for sexual favours.

Section 354B criminalises assault or use of criminal force against a woman with the intent to disrobe her.

Section 341 criminalises wrongful restraint while Section 342 criminalises wrongful confinement.

The case dates back to 2013, when Tejpal was accused of sexually assaulting a junior colleague in an elevator of a high-end hotel in Goa.

The Goa Police subsequently registered a First Information Report (FIR) against Tejpal for various offences including rape. 

He was arrested in November 2013 and later released on bail in July 2014. 

The trial against Tejpal commenced in 2017. The judgment was pronounced by additional sessions judge Kshama Joshi who acquitted Tejpal in May 2021.

The judge reasoned that the investigating officer who probed the rape case committed several omissions and the prosecution failed to produce crucial evidence including CCTV footage in her judgment.

The State then challenged the acquittal before the High Court.

After Tejpal was convicted, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Goa, urged the Court to impose the maximum sentence provided under the Indian Penal Code for the offences.

He stressed on the need for a strong deterrent message in sexual assault cases involving persons in positions of power over women.

"Age‑wise, Tejpal stood in a parental capacity to the victim, a junior colleague, which ought to be a major consideration in sentencing," he said.

He emphasised that the assault was repeated on the next day, despite resistance and clear refusal from the victim, which showed a lack of remorse and “brazen” conduct by Tejpal.

According to Mehta, the defence had wrongly portrayed the victim as having enjoyed the molestation and assault.

"The court’s views on that would definitely throw light that merely because a woman is understanding, mature and responsible would not mean that the benefit will go to the accused. And the punishment should be commensurate with the relationship which they had," he said.

He urged the bench to hand down the maximum sentence to reinforce that when woman says 'no' to sexual intercourse, it means 'no'.

Senior advocate Aabad Ponda, representing Tejpal, pressed for leniency in sentencing and for a stay of 8 weeks on conviction to enable Tejpal to file appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

Ponda pointed out that Tejpal already underwent around six months in custody following his arrest in November 2013, and requested that this period be considered as set‑off under Section 428 of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure.

Ponda submitted that where punishment of 10 years or more is involved and an acquittal has been reversed, the law confers a statutory right of appeal to the Supreme Court. In that backdrop, he requested the High Court to factor in the conflicting findings of the trial court and the High Court in determining sentence and interim protection.

He also pleaded that there were no criminal antecedents and this was the first offence alleged against Tejpal.

Tejpal himself briefly addressed the Bench, stating that there were no new facts he could offer beyond what had been “put out consistently in the courtrooms” over the last 13 years.

"Clearly they don't count for that much. All I can say is I am 62. I believe I am a political victim, I am a father of two daughters. I have a wife. All we can say is we will go up and appeal. My lawyer wants me to request you to be lenient," he said to the court.

Mehta was assisted by Advocate General Devidas Pangam and public prosecutors Shailendra Bhobe and Pravin Faldessai. 

Ponda was assisted by advocates Subhash Jadhav and Raunaq Rao. 

[Read Judgment]