Supreme Court Refuses To Suspend Tarun Tejpal’s Sentence, Says No Motive To Falsely Implicate

The Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed the application in Tarunjit Tejpal v. State of Goa (Criminal Appeal No. 4082/2026). It directed that the appeals be listed for hearing "in their due course."

In the same order, the Court granted leave in SLP (Crl.) No. 15832/2026, the State of Goa's petition seeking enhancement of the sentence.

Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Aggarwal appeared for Tejpal. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju and Goa Advocate General Devidas Pangam appeared for the State.

Counsel for Tejpal told the Bench that this was a case "where the High Court has reversed the acquittal rendered by the Trial Court." They said the Trial Court "has considered the evidence in extenso and disbelieved the case of the prosecution, particularly, that of the prosecutrix."

According to the order, Tejpal's counsel argued that the High Court had not properly considered two pieces of evidence: the CCTV footage, and the fact that "the concerned lift in which the occurrence is stated to have happened opens automatically, whenever it stops." They submitted that "Even according to the prosecution, the occurrence is stated to have happened within a short span of time" and that "The evidence of PW-4 disputes the case of the prosecution."

On personal liberty, the applicant pointed out that he "was in custody pending trial as well, and has been under incarceration for a total period of nine months. He is not a flight risk." The order records that "a fervent plea" was made on that basis to suspend the sentence.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju opposed the application. They submitted that the High Court had also "considered the evidence in extenso," and they told the Court that the State had filed its own petition seeking a higher sentence.

The State endorsed the High Court's criticism of the acquittal. It argued that "The High Court has rightly observed that the Trial Court has put the prosecutrix on trial, as against the applicant."

The State relied mainly on the applicant's own communications. It submitted that "the apology emails, coupled with the text messages sent by the applicant, if read along with the ocular version of the prosecution witnesses, would clearly show that the occurrence has happened, as projected by the prosecution." Because the High Court had considered the relevant material, the State said, "there is no need for suspension of the applicant's sentence at this stage."

The Bench made clear that, at this stage, it was deciding only whether the sentence should be suspended, and not the merits of the appeal. It said: "Having heard the parties, we are, at the moment, concerned with the suspension of sentence of the applicant."

The Court acknowledged the argument that the Trial Court had weighed the record before acquitting Tejpal. It nonetheless held, "… on a prima facie view, particularly, with respect to the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, read with the material produced on record with specific reference to the apology emails and text message(s), we do not find that it is a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence."

The Bench then took into account the relationship between the parties before the incident. The order records that the survivor had been working under the applicant and that the two families knew each other. On that basis, the Court concluded, "From the above, we cannot say that there was a motive on the part of the prosecutrix to implicate the applicant."

The Court held: "In such view of the matter, on a prima facie view, we are not inclined to suspend the sentence of the applicant." It dismissed the application and directed that both appeals, Tejpal's challenge to his conviction and the State's plea for a higher sentence, be listed for hearing in the ordinary course.

Background

The Goa government has also approached the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of the 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded to the Tehelka founder in the 2013 sexual assault case.

The move came days after the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court convicted Tejpal and sentenced him to 10 years in prison on August 6, overturning his acquittal by the trial court in 2021. The High Court had also directed the 63-year-old journalist to surrender before the Goa Police within four weeks.

The case dates back to November 2013, when a junior Tehelka employee accused Tejpal of sexually assaulting her inside a hotel elevator at a Goa resort during the magazine’s annual Thinkfest event. Tejpal was prosecuted under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including provisions relating to rape and assault or criminal force against a woman.

The trial court had acquitted him in 2021. However, while overturning the acquittal, the High Court described the trial court's judgment as “perverse” and criticised its approach to assessing the complainant's testimony, particularly the expectation that a survivor should behave like a “perfect victim” to be considered credible.

A complaint was filed against Tejpal for sexually assaulting his colleague in a hotel in Goa in November 2013. Tejpal was charged with offences punishable under Sections 341 (wrongful restraint), 342 (wrongful confinement), 354 (assault or criminal force with intent to outrage modesty), 354-A (sexual harassment), 354-B (assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 376(2)(f) (person in a position of authority over women committing rape) and 376(2)(k) (rape by a person in a position of control) of the IPC.

He was acquitted by the trial court in May 2021, following which the State of Goa challenged the acquittal before the Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court. On Thursday, the High Court allowed the State's appeal, convicted Tejpal and sentenced him to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment.

Case Title: Tarunjit Tejpal v. State of Goa

Bench: Justices MM Sundresh and PB Varale

Hearing Date: November 6, 2026