SATURDAY, APRIL 20, 2024
As in New Delhi so in Goa. Lakhs of people are suffering, thousands dying — counted and uncounted — from COVID. The Supreme Court and High Courts are flooded with desperate petitions born out of the utter abdication of the administration. The living and breathing of the people is clearly an irrelevance. The Central Vista project is so relevant it is declared an essential service, exempt from COVID restrictions. While here in Goa, something else is occupying the State. On May 21, the Sessions Court acquitted journalist Tarun Tejpal, bête noiré of the BJP, of the charge of rape and other offences. A certified copy of the 527-page, 4-volume judgment was provided to both sides three days later. The State, which has three months to file an appeal, did so the very next day of securing the certified copy.
Questions come to mind. Did the Director of Prosecution read the bulky judgment in less than 24 hours, follow all procedures and recommend an appeal? Has any other criminal appeal ever been filed so instantly? Or were other alleged ‘victims’ ignored altogether? Which Prosecutor had the time to draft and file the appeal literally in a few minutes after the DOP recommendations? What exactly was the extraordinary urgency? Is this not the same govt pulled up by the High Court for being so tardy to procure oxygen, it resulted in scores of preventable deaths? Does the government not have a fleet of Public Prosecutors? Are they all unfit? If not, what is so special about this particular case to engage a pricey Special Prosecutor?
Meanwhile, the Sessions Court’s critical findings remain obscured from public attention:
(a) The Prosecutrix refused to go for medical examination, hence factum of rape not established.
(b) The evidence of the Prosecutrix is extremely inconsistent, again and again she claims not to remember when presented with empirical evidence that contradicts her narrative. It is difficult to believe the Prosecutrix is a truthful and reliable witness. Her testimony is far from being of “sterling quality”, which is a legal requirement to find an accused guilty of rape purely on the basis of one person’s word.
(c) In her examination-in-chief, the Prosecutrix deliberately hid the fact that she met an intimate friend moments after exiting the lift post the alleged incident but did not demonstrate any unease, nor disclose the incident despite extreme candour between them.
(d) There is no evidence to show that the apology tendered by the accused was in respect of sexual assault; rather it was on account of drunken banter, evidence shows.
(e) The very first version of the Prosecutrix to Defense Witness 4 (DW4) completely contradicted her latter narrative of sexual assault; even later versions to other witnesses did not corroborate her evidence in Court as to rape.
(f) There was unequivocal evidence before the Court that the lift simply could not be kept in circuit by pressing buttons on the lift panel preventing the doors from opening at any floor, as claimed by the Prosecutrix, which is the main substance of the complaint. Without this, the claimed assault cannot have happened.
(f) The critical CCTV recording of the lift lobby of the first floor which could, if the complaint were true, prove the culpability of the accused has been destroyed and there is no explanation for this even though the record shows the same was viewed by the Investigating Officer and others. In fact it was the case of the accused that the recording would reveal the truth and the Supreme Court had ordered it be provided. But it has been destroyed?
(g) The court observed that the Prosecutrix stated that he grabbed her wrist and pulled her in, while CCTV footage shows he had not touched her at all. But she not only accompanies him, she first follows him to the lift, and then waits alongside him.
Will any court convict an accused with so many glaring contradictions? Should we be demanding that a court disregard irrefutable and neutral documentary evidence in front of it? And what use will a retrial as demanded be? Actually it is a case where the prosecutrix has contradicted several times even before defence counsel began his grilling.
A glance at the judgment reveals it is not merely an acquittal of the accused but a severe indictment of the Investigating Officer Sunita Sawant. The judge details from paras 332 to para 384 some 40 or more glaring lacunae in the investigation. In truth, though, Ms Sawant is one of Goa’s crack officers often entrusted with sensitive investigations. It is unbelievable that such a highly commended officer would do such a shoddy investigation. Is it too farfetched to believe that Ms Sawant has been a mere pawn in the attempt to settle scores with Tejpal? Or for that matter to believe that any Director of Prosecution has the ability to read through hundreds of pages of evidence of 74 witnesses and a judgment of 527 pages in under 24 hours, recommend an appeal and get it filed? This must be a record of sorts.
This government is always ready to intrude in matters of which it has not even the barest knowledge or understanding. The present charge sheet and its outcome are a natural consequence. It is clear the government wanted to pay Tejpal back for his sting operation, exposure and subsequent arrest of its President Bangaru Laxman and a strategy was devised, Tejpal implicated, arrested, and detained.
It is an opportunity that seasoned (and tragically, late) advocate Rajeev Gomes did not let go as he exposed the countless falsities and lacunae in the investigations step-by-step. Sadly Covid struck before the judgment, denying him the satisfaction, he so well deserved.
(Radharao F. Gracias
is a senior Trial Court
Advocate and a former
Independent MLA)
