PANJIM: The State government had termed the findings of trial court’s verdict in Tarun Tejpal case as “very astonishing” as the High Court of Bombay at Goa on Thursday heard plea challenging acquittal of the Tehelka magazine’s founder.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, appearing for Goa government pointed out to discrepancies in the order of Additional Sessions Judge Kshama Joshi where the identity of the victim, her husband and mother was disclosed.
“Normally I would have bowed down. But in this case, there is so much in the judgment… It is important for women to know that the High Court took immediate cognizance… The trial court ignored many pieces of evidence and the said judgment has disclosed the identity of the victim. Her identity will become public,” Mehta, who along with Advocate General Devidas Pangam is appearing for the State, said while urging the bench of Justice S C Gupte to hear the matter on urgency.
“The findings of the trial court are very astonishing,” he added as he further referred to violation of victim’s privacy in the order.
The Bench passed the order directing the trial court to retract the identity of the prosecutrix (victim) and also the details regarding her husband’s name and also her email address.
“The order which is made available to this court, and which the court is informed is not yet uploaded on the website, contains a reference to the victim’s husband and her email id. Considering the law against disclosure of identity of victim in offence such as the one here, it is directed to the trial court to redact the two references to the victim’s husband and her email id in the judgment while uploading the judgment. So also the reference to the name of the mother of the prosecutrix mentioned therein may be redacted. Wherever there is indication, the same ought to be considered,” the Bench ordered. The Bench has adjourned the hearing of the criminal plea to June 2.
The trial court, in the order had observed that evidence submitted to the court creates doubt on the truthfulness of the victim and noted that the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused in the absence of corroborative evidence.
The court also observed that there was no medical evidence on record to prove sexual assault due to the delay in lodging of FIR.
