10 years in jail for Tarun Tejpal inadequate, consider life term: Goa to SC

Goa Government's Appeal to the Supreme Court

The Goa government has moved the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of the 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded to Tarun Tejpal, former editor-in-chief of Tehelka magazine, convicted of the 2013 rape of a woman journalist. The state called the sentence 'manifestly inadequate' and 'grossly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offences committed'.

The appeal filed by the Goa government argues that the High Court had imposed only the minimum sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment for each of the two aggravated rape convictions, with the sentences to run concurrently. The state urges the Supreme Court to enhance this to imprisonment for life, or such sentence as the court may deem fit with the same not running concurrently.

The state points out that the High Court had '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'. It says 'such reasoning is untenable' and 'the passage of time cannot operate 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 says the sentence 'is further 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 which the defence sought to harass and humiliate her and portray her as a woman of loose morals'. It argues that 'these circumstances underscore the gravity of the offence and the trauma suffered by the victim, and warranted a sentence commensurate with the nature and seriousness of the crimes committed'.

The state says while it is not seeking to reopen or challenge the conviction, the sentence 'does not adequately reflect the gravity of the offences or the aggravating circumstances found proved by the High Court'. It points out that the High Court itself had found that Tejpal occupied a position of 'dominance, control, trust and authority' over the victim.

The state argues that the delay taken for the victim to get justice cannot become a mitigating circumstance in favour of an offender so as to dilute the sentence for a grave sexual offence, particularly where the delay has not been shown to be attributable to the victim. It says the fact that Tejpal has a wife and two adult daughters or that he has not been accused of committing any other offence after the incident 'cannot outweigh the gravity of the offences for which he now stands convicted'.

The direction that the sentences should run concurrently 'further substantially reduces the effective punishment for two distinct aggravated sexual assaults committed on two successive days. Each incident constituted separate criminality and deserves to be reflected in the sentence', the state says.