Days after journalist Tarun Tejpal was sentenced to 19 years in a 2013 sexual assault case, the Goa government on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court seeking an enhanced sentence for him, contending the case warrants imprisonment for life.
Tejpal was convicted of rape by the Bombay High Court, which on August 6 sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, overturning the acquittal of the former editor of Tehelka by the trial court five years ago.
In its special leave petition in the apex court, the Goa government said that the sentence imposed by the Bombay HC was "grossly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offences" committed by the convict.
"The present case warrants enhancement of sentence to imprisonment for life, or such enhanced sentence as this court may deem appropriate, and the sentences ought not to have been directed to run concurrently," the plea argued.
The Goa government, however, clarified that the challenge is confined to the quantum of sentence and the direction for concurrent operation of sentences.
Notably, in its verdict, the Bombay HC had termed the trial court's 2021 order as "perverse", emphasising that it fell for the notion that a sexual assault complainant must be a "perfect victim" and conduct herself in a certain way so as to appear credible.
The case stems from the rape of a junior colleague inside a hotel elevator in 2013 during an event organised by Tehelka magazine in Goa. In his defence, the 62-year-old journalist has claimed that he was a political victim and would approach the Supreme Court to challenge his conviction.
The Goa government has already moved to the apex court, saying the high court "imposed only the minimum sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment for each of the two aggravated rape convictions, with the sentences directed to run concurrently".
It said Tejpal was the employer of the victim and was also a friend of her father. "The high court, inter alia, relied upon the fact that 13 years had elapsed since the commission of the offences and that both the victim and the respondent had moved on with their lives, while imposing the minimum sentence and directing the sentences to run concurrently. Such reasoning is untenable," it said.
The plea argues the passage of time cannot act as a pretext to the benefit of the offender or become a premium for the delay in the administration of justice, particularly at the cost of the victim.
The plea further argued that the sentence imposed was disproportionate in view of the high court's own finding that the victim was subjected to nearly 1,000 pages of invasive cross-examination. During the cross-examination, the defence sought to "harass and humiliate her and portray her as a woman of loose morals".
"The petitioner State does not, in the present petition, seek to reopen or challenge the findings of conviction recorded by the High Court. The challenge is confined to the quantum of sentence and the direction for concurrent operation of sentences," the plea said.
(With PTI Inputs)