Afterthe full copy of the judgement of Tarun Tejpal’s case was made available in thepublic domain on Wednesday, it came to fore that District and Sessions judgewhile acquitting former editor-in-chief of Tehelka, of the charges of sexuallyassaulting his then colleague in a Goa hotel in 2013, maintained that the womani.e. the complainant did not behave like sexual assault victim.
Thejudgement by Additional District and Sessions judge North Goa Kshama Joshi hasalso underlined the "glaring contradictions" in the statements by thevictim, her mother and brother and stated that there was no medical evidenceand there were ‘facts’ that ‘create doubt on (her) truthfulness’.
Meanwhile,the statement of the Judge has not gone down well with many as they raisedquestions that how “normative behavior” by the victim could be the basis ofjudgement.
Whenasked to a Jalandhar-based Lawyer Manpreet Kaur that whether showing courageand grit in the face of assault is not an appropriate behaviour for the victimor is there a certain way in the eyes of law that a sexual assault woman shouldbehave?
Shereplied that the points highlighted in the judgement wherein the"normalcy" of the victim's behaviour is concerned, it basically drawsattention to the fact that there was evidence that created doubt on hertruthfulness.
Shesaid that in the judgement, Judge Kshama Joshi has written, “Upon consideringevidence on record…benefit of doubt is given to the accused because there is nocorroborative evidence supporting the allegations made by the complainantgirl”. This means, the points that the complainant first mentioned that she wasdistraught, in shock and trauma and in fear and anxiety on November 7 and 8(when the said rape allegedly occurred), and then on the same day i.e. November8, she was reporting to the accused and even disclosed to him her location.
Manpreetsaid the Court in the judgement noted, “The unnatural conduct of theprosecutrix is again relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Theprosecutrix had admitted that there were two SMSes sent from her phone to theaccused on 8/11/2013…..and that these messages were not sent by her in responseto any messages”.
Shefurther said that the judgement also remarked that the victim had lied in herdeposition with regards to the reason why she stayed back in Goa after theTehelka Think event in November, 2013 and that the reason was not to seek peaceof mind after the alleged sexual assault. The extended stay in Goa was plannedand premeditated, the judgement states, based on Whatsapp chats with thevictim's friends.
Clarifyingthe ‘Sexual assault Victim Behaviour’ term used by Judge, Manpreet, said such terms are usedwhen the court finds that the evidence of the Prosecutrix do not inspireconfidence and there are material omissions and glaring contradictions in theevidences presented.
Shesaid in the Tejpal case, the statement of the Prosecutrix and her mother andbrother contradicts. “Each of them has different stories to tell about thecommission of the offence of rape on the prosecutrix on three occasions”.
Background
Tejpalwas accused by a junior colleague of assaulting her twice in November 2013,following which the former editor was charged with sections 376 (rape), 341(wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement) 354A (sexual harassment) and354B (criminal assault), of the Indian Penal Code. Tejpal was acquitted of allcharges on May 21, however, the Goa government has appealed against theacquittal in the Bombay High Court now.