Panaji: The high court of Bombay at Goa on Tuesday reserved its judgment without specifying the date on former editor of Tehelka Tarun Tejpal's plea challenging the order of the trial court to frame charges against him for allegedly raping a woman in a lift of a starred hotel in November 2013. Police had attached CCTV footage, recorded the girl's statement and claimed Tejpal apologised.
In course of arguments, Justice Nutan Sardessai asked the prosecution as to why the survivor, if at all she was subjected to humiliating conduct, was seen in the footage running behind Tejpal and catching up with him outside the lift.
Special public prosecutor Saresh Lotlikar said to know her conduct, trial is a must. "It is too far-fetched at this stage to discard her statement and discharge the accused based on footage," he said, adding that the high court cannot conduct a meticulous examination but must look at the case prima facie. "The girl had made a statement on oath and an opportunity should be given to her to explain her demeanour in the witness box," he said.
To the judge's query as to why the laptop of the victim was not attached as there was an exchange of emails, Lotlikar said that at this stage court should consider the material placed before it.
Arguing that the police investigation was premature and hasty, Tejpal's lawyer and senior advocate Aman Lekhi said charges cannot be framed on 'mere suspicion' as the Supreme Court mandates that 'grave suspicion' is a must.
Claiming that there were contradictions in the statement of the alleged victim and what was revealed in the CCTV footage, Lekhi said the recording of the duo entering and exiting the lift is the 'most material' evidence.
"Footage negates the girl's statement. Tejpal was denied CCTV footage and copies of messages for three years. Moreover, there is no CCTV footage inside the lift," he said. The footage was shown to the judge by Tejpal's lawyer on Tuesday.
Arguing that the two apologies by Tejpal were not an admission of any offence, he said the first was an informal one and not connected to the case, while the second a formal apology, sent after around three minutes, was drafted by managing editor Shoma Chaudhury, which he was coerced to sign.
"The so-called apologies don't satisfy the ingredients of an offence," he said during his arguments that lasted over two hours. Lekhi told the court that the laptop of the prosecution was not formally seized and the phone of Tejpal became dysfunctional while in police custody.
"The first person whom she narrated the incident too was not examined,'' Lekhi said, adding that the investigation officer being the complainant has caused prejudice as "the state was blatantly partisan".
In course of arguments, Justice Nutan Sardessai asked the prosecution as to why the survivor, if at all she was subjected to humiliating conduct, was seen in the footage running behind Tejpal and catching up with him outside the lift.
Special public prosecutor Saresh Lotlikar said to know her conduct, trial is a must. "It is too far-fetched at this stage to discard her statement and discharge the accused based on footage," he said, adding that the high court cannot conduct a meticulous examination but must look at the case prima facie. "The girl had made a statement on oath and an opportunity should be given to her to explain her demeanour in the witness box," he said.
To the judge's query as to why the laptop of the victim was not attached as there was an exchange of emails, Lotlikar said that at this stage court should consider the material placed before it.
Arguing that the police investigation was premature and hasty, Tejpal's lawyer and senior advocate Aman Lekhi said charges cannot be framed on 'mere suspicion' as the Supreme Court mandates that 'grave suspicion' is a must.
Claiming that there were contradictions in the statement of the alleged victim and what was revealed in the CCTV footage, Lekhi said the recording of the duo entering and exiting the lift is the 'most material' evidence.
"Footage negates the girl's statement. Tejpal was denied CCTV footage and copies of messages for three years. Moreover, there is no CCTV footage inside the lift," he said. The footage was shown to the judge by Tejpal's lawyer on Tuesday.
Arguing that the two apologies by Tejpal were not an admission of any offence, he said the first was an informal one and not connected to the case, while the second a formal apology, sent after around three minutes, was drafted by managing editor Shoma Chaudhury, which he was coerced to sign.
"The so-called apologies don't satisfy the ingredients of an offence," he said during his arguments that lasted over two hours. Lekhi told the court that the laptop of the prosecution was not formally seized and the phone of Tejpal became dysfunctional while in police custody.
"The first person whom she narrated the incident too was not examined,'' Lekhi said, adding that the investigation officer being the complainant has caused prejudice as "the state was blatantly partisan".
Get latest news & live updates on the go on your pc with News App. Download The Times of India news app for your device.
