Bombay High Court Rejects the ‘Perfect Victim’ Approach in Sexual Assault Cases

Case Name: State of Goa v. Tarunjit Tejpal

Factual Background:

The State of Goa challenged the acquittal of Tarunjit Tejpal, former Editor-in-Chief and owner of Tehelka, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, in relation to allegations of sexual assault against a female journalist employed by Tehelka. The alleged incidents occurred during the 2013 THiNK Fest in Goa, when the victim was assigned to chaperone Robert De Niro. She alleged that Tejpal sexually assaulted her inside a hotel lift on 7 November 2013 and again on 8 November 2013. Tejpal was charged under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(k), 354, 354A, 354B, 341 and 342 IPC. The Trial Court acquitted him in 2021, following which the State appealed.

Court’s Analysis:

The High Court held that the Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence was perverse and legally flawed. It found the victim’s testimony reliable and noted that several witnesses corroborated her account. The Court reiterated that corroboration of a victim’s testimony is not a mandatory requirement of law where her evidence inspires confidence. CCTV footage, although not recording the assault inside the lift, independently established the presence and movements of the victim and accused at the relevant time and place.

The Court also attached significance to the respondent’s apology emails, holding that his references to an “encounter” and “sexual liaison” contradicted his complete denial. Since the defence was one of absolute denial rather than consent, the Court accepted the victim’s testimony; additionally, Section 114A of the Evidence Act required a presumption of absence of consent once she stated that she had not consented in a prosecution under Sections 376(2)(f) and (k).

Importantly, the Court rejected reliance on the victim’s past relationships, social interactions, photographs, drinking, continued participation in the festival or delayed reporting to discredit her. It criticised the Trial Court for applying the “perfect victim” construct and emphasised that survivors may respond to trauma differently. Credibility must be assessed on evidence rather than stereotypical expectations of how a sexual-assault survivor should behave.

The Court further recognised the respondent’s position as the victim’s employer, mentor, father’s friend and a person exercising control, dominance, trust and authority, bringing the conduct within the aggravated categories under Sections 376(2)(f) and (k) IPC.

Order of the Court:

The High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted Tejpal under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(k), 354, 354A, 354B, 341 and 342 IPC. It imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and ₹5 lakh fine under each of Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(k), with lesser concurrent sentences for the remaining offences. The fines were directed to be paid to the victim, and four weeks were granted for surrender.

Key Takeaway:

The judgment strongly rejects victim-blaming and stereotypical notions of post-assault behaviour. It affirms that a survivor’s delayed complaint, continued professional functioning, social interactions, past relationships or absence of physical resistance cannot, by themselves, negate allegations of sexual assault. The judgment is particularly significant for recognising workplace power dynamics and abuse of a position of trust, control and dominance as relevant to aggravated sexual offences. It also reinforces the evidentiary value of contemporaneous disclosures, corroborative circumstances, electronic evidence and admissions, while cautioning courts against using irrelevant or statutorily prohibited material concerning a victim’s sexual history or character to assess credibility.

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa and Adv. Divyanshi Goel