Tehelka founder Tarun Tejpal’s legal team is arguing in the Bombay High Court that the complainant's statements in a 2013 assault case are contradictory. The defense team presented technical evidence and CCTV footage from the hotel lift to challenge the prosecution’s version of events during the final hearing. The High Court will decide on the appeal against his earlier acquittal after concluding these arguments.
The Bombay High Court is currently conducting final hearings regarding the 2013 sexual assault case involving Tehelka founder Tarun Tejpal. After a trial court previously acquitted him, the state government filed an appeal, which is now being heard by the High Court's Goa bench. The proceedings have centered on the reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution and the consistency of the complainant's testimony.
Defense Arguments on Technical Evidence
Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda, representing Tarun Tejpal, argued that the complainant's account contains significant inconsistencies that undermine the prosecution's claims. A key focus of the defense's presentation involved CCTV footage and technical records from the hotel lift where the incident allegedly took place. The defense team contended that these recordings do not support the complainant's version of the events.
Specifically, the defense challenged the claim that the lift's controls were manipulated to trap the complainant. By presenting expert testimony and records related to the hotel's security systems, the legal team argued that the lift’s operation does not align with the narrative provided. They stated that the lift doors were programmed to open automatically upon reaching a floor, regardless of specific button inputs, suggesting that the alleged trapping scenario was physically impossible.
Scrutiny of Witness Testimony
Beyond technical evidence, the defense highlighted what they described as evolving allegations made by the complainant. The legal team noted shifts in the testimony provided during the trial compared to earlier statements given to investigating officers. The defense argued that the complainant’s descriptions of the incident, including the sequence of pressing buttons inside the lift, changed during cross-examination, making the account unreliable.
On the other side of the courtroom, the prosecution is led by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. The prosecution maintains that the complainant remains a credible witness and asserts that the trial court's initial decision to acquit the founder was incorrect. They continue to push for a reversal of the acquittal based on the gathered evidence. The High Court is expected to conclude the arguments soon and reserve its verdict, which will determine the next steps in this long-running legal matter.