TEAM HERALD
PANJIM: The Fast Track Court in Panjim, hearing the Tarun Tejpal sex scandal case, has sought the opinion of information technology experts on whether raw DVR footage can be copied on a pen drive.
Rape accused Tejpal had filed a rejoinder before FTC judge Vijaya Pol seeking unedited CCTV footage from the hotel where the alleged incident occured, from November 7 to 29, 2013. His earlier petition had asked unedited CCTV footage from November 7-10, 2013.
The prosecution led by Francis Tavora objected to the rejoinder arguing that “it is not relevant”, while Advocate D Dhond contested it saying the Crime Branch was hiding the facts of the case. The prosecution argued that it was time consuming to refer to various technicalities in the unedited video footage.
The court was supposed to pronounce its verdict on Tejpal’s applications– seeking complete copy of the chargesheet and the CCTV footage, and action against the investigating officer Sunita Sawant for disclosing identity of the victim in the charge sheet, on Friday. The judge, after verbal clarifications on the submissions made by the prosecution at the arguments stage, adjourned the matter for Tuesday subject to verifications.
Based on the opinion from IT experts whether the raw footage of 22-days can be transferred to a pen drive, the court said it will take a decision. The lady judge said the defence will be allowed to inspect the footage in the presence of the concerned authorities if data transfer is not possible.
She also asked both the parties to produce their respective charge sheet copies in the case, for comparison of content pages after Dhond alleged that his copy is ‘illegible.’ P P Tavora denied the allegation that they are suppressing information.
“Instead of confrontation solve the matter amicably. Where is the question of prejudice,” Judge Pol questioned as she intervened in a heated discussion between the prosecution and defence. “It (inspection) can be done in the presence of both parties and the court. These things can be amicably settled,” she further said.
Tejpal has also sought all email communications of the victim girl and other related individuals/organisations in the case from the date of the incident (November 7-8, 2013) till the day her statement was recorded before a judicial magistrate. In addition, he also sought mobile phone tower locations.
Sawant told the court that submissions made in the charge sheet to the court was entirely submitted to the accused. Tavora said they have included only selected email communications in the charge sheet. He further insisted that “the defense should point out what is missing from the copy of the charge sheet available with them. “Point out the illegible portions (in the charge sheet copy with the defence). Let this be compared in the court,” he said. The judge told both the parties to compare the copies in the court on April 16 morning when IT expert opinion will be sought
