New Delhi [India], August 24 (ANI): Rape convict and former editor of Tehelka magazine Tarun Tejpal on Monday submitted before the Supreme Court that the victim’s statements on which Tejpal has been convicted are inconsistent with CCTV footage recorded as evidence in the case.
The submission was made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Tejpal, in his plea seeking exemption from surrendering so that his criminal appeal against the Bombay High Court conviction can be listed before the Supreme Court.
A bench of Justice Alok Aradhe heard the matter.
Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the State of Goa, opposed the plea. He submitted that under the Supreme Court Rules, an accused sentenced to imprisonment has to either surrender or seek exemption from surrendering before the appeal can be accepted by the Registry.
Mehta said the existence of Tejpal’s appeal was dependent on either filing proof that he had surrendered or obtaining an exemption from the Court.
He also referred to Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan v. CBI, arguing that the protection granted by the Special Court by suspending the sentence was subject to the applicable rules.
Mehta submitted that Section 389 and the provisions governing the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction operate independently.
Sibal countered that this was not a case where Tejpal was seeking an extension of protection. He said the High Court had already granted protection by staying the sentence and that the order continued to operate.
Sibal also argued that Tejpal’s matter was a regular criminal appeal and not an SLP under the provision relied upon by Mehta. Sibal said Tejpal was not seeking any extension and was only asking that the matter be listed on August 31. He argued that there would be no prejudice if the matter was listed before the September 3 deadline for surrender.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Justice Alok Aradhe reserved the Court’s decision. “We will pass an order”, the judge said.
The issue before the Court arises from the Supreme Court Rules, which require an appellant sentenced to imprisonment to surrender before filing an appeal. Where the appellant has not surrendered, the appeal cannot be accepted by the Registry unless it is accompanied by an application seeking exemption from surrendering.
The Bombay High Court had directed Tejpal to surrender within four weeks after convicting him. His surrender is consequently due on September 3.
Tejpal’s plea seeks permission for his criminal appeal to be listed on August 31 without requiring him to surrender first. His contention is that if the Supreme Court agrees to list and hear the appeal on August 31, requiring him to surrender for the intervening two days before September 3 would serve no purpose. If the appeal is not entertained, he would, in any event, have to surrender by September 3.
On the merits of his challenge to the Bombay High Court judgment, Tejpal has, in his plea, argued that the High Court failed to properly appreciate the CCTV footage and other evidence.
His appeal specifically relies on the CCTV footage of the hotel lift in Goa where the crime had occurred in 2013. Tejpal argues that the footage and the evidence of the hotel’s security manager contradict the prosecution version regarding what happened inside the lift. According to his plea, the lift doors automatically opened when the lift reached a designated floor and remained open for at least four seconds.
The appeal further relies on the sequence captured in the CCTV footage, including the movement of the lift while Tejpal and the victim were allegedly absent from it. Tejpal contends that this evidence was inconsistent with the account accepted by the High Court.
He has also challenged the High Court’s assessment of the victim’s conduct after the alleged incidents, relying on CCTV footage, WhatsApp messages, emails and evidence of other witnesses. The plea contends that this material was not consistent with the victim’s version.
The Bombay High Court had in August reversed Tejpal’s acquittal by the trial court and convicted him for the alleged sexual assault, sentencing him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
Advocate Aditya Samaddar has filed the plea on behalf of Tejpal. (ANI)
Related reading
