ARPITA SRIVASTAVA | NT
Mapusa: The additional district and session court at Mapusa, while acquitting former editor and founder of Tehelka, Tarun Tejpal, in a 2013 rape case, said that prosecution failed to “discharge the burden of proving the guilt of the accused”.
In the 527-page judgment, judge Kshama Joshi said, “Considering the other evidence on the record the benefit of doubt is given to the accused as there is no corroborative evidence supporting the allegation made by prosecutrix (victim), and the deposition of the prosecutrix also shows improvement and materials contradictions and omission and changes of version which does not inspire confidence.”
During the trial, the court answered affirmatively that prosecution proved that the accused was a person in a position of trust or authority over the prosecutrix.
While important points, including that the accused had committed rape, used criminal force to the prosecutrix with intention to outrage her modesty or committed physical contact and advance involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures thereby causing sexual harassment to the prosecutrix, were answered as negative by the court.
The court said that there are many facts that create doubt on truthfulness of the prosecutrix. There is also no medical evidence. The court said the prosecutrix’s account neither demonstrated any kind of normative behaviour on her own part.
It further said that prosecutrix’s messages to the accused clearly establish that she was neither “traumatized nor terrified” and this “completely belies” the prosecution’s case.
The court also pointed out that CCTV footage and photographs clearly proved that the prosecutrix was absolutely in a good mood, happy, normal and smiling and did not look distressed or traumatized.
The court said the WhatsApp message sent by the prosecutrix to the accused proactively, without any attempt by him to ask her where she was, and her sending the same message thrice in the span of the very few minutes, clearly establishes that the prosecutrix was not traumatized nor terrified of being located or found by the accused.
In the case prosecution failed to prove that the prosecutrix was wrongfully restrained by the accused.
The court in its judgment also pointed out lapse in the investigation.
The court said that investigation officer in some aspects, such as CCTV footage of the first floor of Block 7 of the hotel, entirely destroyed the evidence, knowing that it is necessary for gathering all the evidence through the investigation.
The court also said that during the scene of offence panchanama IO did not verify operations and function of any buttons of the lift panel of Block 7, a glaring and deliberate omission in continuation of crucial nature of evidence.
“The investigating officer has committed omissions and commissions while conducting the investigation in the present case, wherein (the) IO has done no investigation on crucial and vital aspects of the present case,” the court maintained.
The court further said the investigation officer admitted that she did not move any proposal before her superiors that she being the complainant the investigation should be handed over to some other officer.
The court also said, “(The) IO failed to compare the statement made by prosecutrix in her statement with CCTV footage which constitutes the most neutral evidence in the case. The IO did not find it necessary or relevant or important to refer to the CCTV footage while recording the statement of the prosecutrix despite already having viewed the CCTV footage and being aware that there were glaring contradictions between the footages and account of the prosecutrix.”
It further also said the IO did not seal the DVD which contained the voice recording, which was handed over to her by the prosecutrix. “The investigating officer although collected the CCTV footage of the ground, first and second floor but the footage of the first floor cannot be found for the perusal of the court which is a material lapse by (the) IO,” said the court.