Tarun Tejpal’s decision shocking, wrong, Goa said, demand for early hearing on appeal

Appealing against the acquittal of Tehelka’s former editor-in-chief Tarun Tejpal, who was accused of sexual harassment of his then colleague in a Goa hotel in 2013, the state government on Thursday insisted for its early hearing Said, “We owe it.” For our girls “and that the order of acquittal is” flawed in law “and” durable “. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the state government, told a vacation bench of the Bombay High Court in Goa that the way the lower court dealt with the sexual harassment case, it appears that “any victim of sexual harassment” The person to demonstrate his trauma “and until he did, he could not be believed. Justice SC Gupte directed the sessions court to acquit Tejpal for revising the references to his decision, Who can reveal the victim’s identity, including her email address and the names of her family members. “I am sorry that the High Court had to do this. The lower court should have done this. The court should have been sensitive,

“Mehta said. Describing the Sessions court’s decision as “very surprising”, he said the case against Tejpal was of sexual abuse and the system expected sensitivity and legal capacity for the victim – both of which, he said, were lacking in the lower court’s verdict . Requesting the court to hear the Goa government’s appeal as soon as possible, Mehta said, “We are indebted to our girls that the court hears it as soon as possible.” He said it is the duty of the state to file an appeal against the decision of the lower court. On 21 May, Tejpal was acquitted of all charges in a case of rape and sexual harassment. Mehta also referred to a lower court order stating that the victim had taken the help of Indira Jaising, a prominent lawyer, before drafting her complaint. In his 527-page judgment, Additional Sessions Judge Kshama Joshi wrote: “With the help of experts, There may be a possibility of doctorating events or adding events. Thus the counsel for the accused has rightly said that the statement of the prosecutor (victim) should be examined from the same angle. On Thursday, Mehta told the High Court: “He (the victim) rightly took the advice of a reputed female lawyer whom you can trust.

Any right-thinking girl will do the same. ” He cited Section 228A of the IPC which punishes up to two years in prison and fine for printing or publishing a name or anything that exposes the identity of a victim of sexual assault. He said that the lower court’s decision was not uploaded on its website, but the Goa government had received a physical copy. He pointed to the paragraphs of the verdict that disclose the identity of the victim or her family members. Mehta urged the bench to direct the lower court to modify these and all other references in the verdict which may reveal the identity of the victim before uploading the verdict on the court website. Justice Gupte wrote in his order, “In the interest of protecting the identity of the victim of a crime, as we are concerned in the present case, The above references… it is appropriate to amend the judgment. ” . In its appeal, the Goa government stated that the decision of the lower court was not available at the time of filing the appeal and sought the court’s permission to amend the grounds of the appeal.