The Supreme Court on Friday declined to suspend the 10-year prison sentence imposed on former Tehelka editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal, who was convicted of raping a junior colleague inside a hotel elevator in Goa in November 2013.
A Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale rejected Tejpal’s application after examining the evidence on record, including the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies and the emails and messages exchanged between the accused and the survivor.
The Court clarified that it was considering only the question of suspension of sentence at this stage. Upon a prima facie assessment of the material, it found no justification to grant the relief sought by Tejpal.
Tejpal had approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court’s August 6 judgment, which overturned his acquittal by the trial court in 2021 and convicted him of rape and other related offences. The Goa government has separately filed an appeal seeking enhancement of his sentence to life imprisonment.
Appearing for Tejpal, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the High Court had failed to properly appreciate crucial technical evidence concerning the functioning of the hotel elevator in which the alleged assault took place.
Sibal submitted that the prosecution’s case was that Tejpal had deliberately prevented the elevator doors from opening while sexually assaulting the survivor. However, he contended that evidence presented by technical experts indicated that the elevator doors opened automatically whenever the lift reached a floor.
Referring to the alleged duration of the incident, Sibal argued that the elevator had reached the ground floor twice during the period of two minutes and nine seconds. He questioned the survivor’s account that the doors had remained closed throughout the incident and contended that the High Court had not adequately addressed this discrepancy.
He also alleged that relevant CCTV footage, which could have established whether the elevator doors had opened, was not preserved by the investigating agency despite the investigating officer having viewed it.
Sibal further referred to the survivor’s interaction with a hotel employee, Nikhil Agarwal, immediately after she exited the elevator. He argued that Agarwal’s testimony, recorded as a defence witness, and the survivor’s subsequent conduct had not been properly considered while assessing the evidence.
Emphasising that the High Court had reversed an acquittal, Sibal submitted that suspension of sentence was ordinarily warranted in such circumstances.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, also appearing for Tejpal, contended that the survivor had given multiple accounts of the incident before the registration of the FIR on November 22, 2013. He argued that the earlier communications referred to flirting and kissing but did not contain an allegation of oral penetration.
The defence also pointed out that Tejpal had remained on bail during the trial and had not misused the liberty granted to him.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Goa, strongly opposed the application and submitted that the defence was attempting to reopen issues that had already been examined by the High Court.
Mehta highlighted the position of authority Tejpal occupied as the head of the magazine where the survivor worked and pointed out that she was also a friend of his daughter.
Referring to the evidence of the survivor’s colleagues, the Solicitor General submitted that they had seen her crying after the incident. He also drew the Bench’s attention to a message sent by Tejpal to the survivor at around 1:30 am following the incident, containing the word “Fingertips”.
Mehta further relied upon an apology email sent by Tejpal after the survivor raised the complaint with the magazine’s then editor, Shoma Chaudhary. He argued that the communication was material to the assessment of the allegations and could not be brushed aside by focusing exclusively on the technical functioning of the elevator.
The Solicitor General also criticised the approach adopted by the trial court, submitting that its judgment had effectively placed the survivor’s conduct and behaviour under scrutiny instead of assessing the allegations in their proper evidentiary context.
In response, Sibal disputed the prosecution’s interpretation of the apology email, maintaining that it had been drafted by Chaudhary and that Tejpal’s apology related to a conversation rather than an admission of rape. He also offered an alternative explanation for the message containing the word “Fingertips”.
The case relates to allegations of sexual assault by Tejpal against a junior woman colleague inside an elevator at a luxury hotel in Goa during an event organised by Tehelka magazine in November 2013.
The Goa trial court acquitted Tejpal of all charges in 2021. However, the Bombay High Court, sitting at Goa, reversed the acquittal on August 6, convicted him of rape and other offences under the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
The High Court had faulted the trial court’s assessment of the survivor’s testimony, particularly its reliance on her post-incident conduct and the manner in which it evaluated her response to the alleged assault. It emphasised that survivors of sexual violence cannot be expected to conform to a predetermined pattern of behaviour.
Tejpal subsequently challenged the conviction and sentence before the Supreme Court. The Goa government, on the other hand, sought enhancement of the punishment to life imprisonment.
Tejpal surrendered in September after the Supreme Court declined to entertain his challenge without first requiring him to surrender before the competent court.
Case Title: Tarunjit Tejpal v. State of Goa
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 4082/2026
The post Supreme Court declines to suspend Tarun Tejpal’s 10-year sentence in 2013 rape case appeared first on India Legal.