On August 24, Tarun Tejpal, the former editor of Tehelka magazine, submitted to the Supreme Court that the statements made by the victims in his case do not align with the evidence recorded on CCTV footage. This claim was articulated by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who is representing Tejpal in his appeal against a conviction handed down by the Bombay High Court.

During the proceedings, a bench led by Justice Alok Aradhe examined the plea requesting exemption from surrendering before the appeal can be advanced. Tejpal is currently seeking to postpone his surrender date, which is mandated by the High Court following his conviction for rape.

In opposition, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta argued that the rules stipulate that a convicted individual must either surrender or formally request exemption before an appeal can be processed. He noted that Tejpal’s appeal depends on fulfilling this requirement, stressing that the Supreme Court rules must be adhered to in this matter.

Legal Interpretations and Procedural Requirements Raised

The Solicitor General also referenced the precedent established in the case of Mayuram Subramanian Srinivasan v. CBI, indicating that protections granted by the Special Court are bound by relevant procedural regulations. He maintained that the provisions governing the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction operate independently of those in the lower courts.

In response, Sibal clarified that Tejpal is not attempting to extend any existing legal protection but is instead asking the Supreme Court to consider the case without a prior requirement to surrender. He referenced the High Court’s earlier suspension of Tejpal’s sentence, which he argued should still be in effect.

Sibal reiterated that the appeal pertains to standard legal procedures, not falling under the special leave petition framework utilised by the prosecution. He maintained that a listing on August 31 would not prejudice any party involved, as the surrender deadline remains set for September 3.

CCTV Evidence Central to Tejpal’s Appeal

The appeal put forth by Tejpal makes extensive reference to CCTV footage from a hotel lift in Goa, where the alleged incident took place in 2013. According to Sibal, the footage and statements from the hotel’s security personnel allegedly contradict the prosecution’s narrative, pointing to inconsistencies regarding the events that transpired inside the lift.

Tejpal’s appeal suggests that the lift doors opened automatically once it reached a designated floor, remaining open for approximately four seconds. The evidence cited includes the movement patterns of the lift as captured on CCTV, which Tejpal contends are inconsistent with the prosecution’s timeline of events. This point forms a critical aspect of his challenge against the High Court’s ruling.

Additionally, Tejpal’s plea calls into question the High Court’s interpretation of the victim’s behaviour following the alleged offences. He has incorporated WhatsApp messages, emails, and testimonies from other witnesses to assert that these elements contradict the version of events presented by the victim.

In August, the Bombay High Court overturned Tejpal’s prior acquittal and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment for the alleged sexual assault. The legal proceedings continue as Tejpal seeks to overturn this conviction while challenging the interpretation of key evidence in the case.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share