Supplementary charge sheet filed towards the end of the trial

In January 2021, eight years after the FIR was filed by the IO and just weeks before the sessions court trial was to conclude, the prosecution filed a supplementary chargesheet against my father. The initial charge sheet was already a mammoth document, running into 13 volumes and comprising some 2500 pages. In my view, it was completely disproportionate to the alleged crime of two odd minutes with NO physical evidence of violence or assault. The prosecution’s new supplement called for the examination of 10 new and irrelevant witnesses, of which a handful were then examined. Despite this tactic to delay and further complicate the case, my father received a complete acquittal from the trial court.

The false FIRs that went missing

On 22nd November 2013, days after the alleged victim made her accusation, my older sister Tiya went on her own accord to her mother’s house. Tiya and the alleged victim had become friends over the past year or so. She was thus in a state of distress, shock and confusion as the accusation was contrary to what the alleged victim had told her. Additionally it had been leaked to the media and caused an enormous media storm to break above our heads. Tiya briefly met with the alleged victim’s mother (a woman who she had met a few times previously) to try and understand what was happening and why. The alleged victim emailed Tiya later that day, thanking her for visiting her mother. Yet the following day we learnt that the mother had filed an FIR against Tiya claiming criminal intimidation! This FIR was widely reported by the media at the time, but that was the last that anyone heard of it.

My father himself remained at Vasco jail as an undertrial prisoner in Goa police custody for six months between December 2013 and May 2014. Mere days before his bail appeal was to be heard by the High Court, the Investigating Officer filed a ludicrous FIR against him alleging a conspiracy to break out of jail and help other prisoners escape. His bail appeal was subsequently denied, and this FIR was also never heard of again. Interestingly, no news about this can now be found online

With no basis in truth, one can only assume that these FIRs were filed to sensationalise the case, vilify my family further, and obstruct our appeals for bail.

I had sincerely hoped that some media house would examine the court documents and fairly report on the accusation, investigation and trial. While there have been many highly passionate opinion essays written on this case, I find a disconcerting absence of reportage on the facts that are now available in the public domain. I do not have the power of any media house behind me, nor the reach of an influencer. I have published this series because the facts are important, and deserve to be known.

*Through this series, I have italicised the quotes that I have picked directly from the session’s court judgement and other case files, only blanking out the names of individual witnesses in the interest of their privacy.   

The only Res Gestae witness was dropped by the prosecution

While the alleged victim’s initial accounts mentioned him as the first person she met after being assaulted, she later dropped him completely from her narrative. In early 2014, this witness wrote to the police volunteering information, but was deliberately overlooked by the Investigating Officer and prosecution. He was ultimately produced as a Defence Witness. The sessions court found that:

“The IO has not conducted any investigation or questioned the Prosecutrix on why she dropped all mention of DW4 from her complaint of 18.11.2013, though the prosecutrix admitted that in her email dt. 16/11/13 she had stated that DW4 was the first person she met and spoke to in the minutes after the alleged incident on 7.11.2013.”

“In the present case also though DW4 was the first person who the victim met as per her email she has filed to delete the same which is admitted by the victim and the I.O. has failed to record his statement nor investigate as he had sent a letter also to that effect.”

“… especially given the crucial nature of the first witness The evidence of DW4 demolishes the version of the Prosecutrix.”

The witness who didn’t make it to the stand

The State of Goa called upon a staggering 71 prosecution witnesses in their case against my father. Missing amongst them was not just the res gestae witness mentioned above, but another witness who had shared his room at the hotel with the alleged victim the night after she claimed to have been assaulted. Court documents show that this witness wrote to the police, volunteering to share the information he has but his statement was never recorded by the Investigating Officer. On this matter, the trial court found:

“PW70 has stated that it is further written in the letter that he has remained silent all this while as he did not want to be involved in this mess but that he feels his story will be beneficial to the investigation and that it was further requested in the letter to guide him so that he is able to do the right thing and bring everything to light. PW70, the Investigating Officer despite receiving the said letter did not record the statement of XYZ.”

“The IO has dealt with the material that in an casual manner, and has failed to even record the statement, let alone probe, verify and investigate all the material potentially available in order to arrive at the truth. Further, the IO and the prosecution. are both aware that the word of the prosecutrix is not meant to be taken as gospel but the circumstances, plausibility and above all, the requirement of the prosecutrix to prove herself a sterling witness are essential in law before lending absolute credence to her word. Yet, at every stage, anomalies, discrepancies, wild inaccuracies, improvements, omissions, contradictions and sheer impossibilities mark the narrative of the prosecutrix, yet the IO and the prosecution have turned a blind eye to them at every stage. ”

Continued in Part IV

The prosecution refused to handover crucial evidence

While the CCTV footage was seized by the police in November 2013 itself, it was not released to us, the defence, for nearly two years until we approached the Supreme Court. In her cross examination, the Investigating Officer casually admitted that this evidence was not provided to us when the chargesheet was filed:

“Were copies of the unedited CCTV footage contained in DVR MO no.9 Ex P5 furnished to the accused along with the charge sheet?

Ans. No.”

The CCTV footage is crucial because it can directly be compared to the allegations made against my father. For example, the court makes the following observation on the allegation of the second day of assault:

“It is crucial to note that while in her complaint PW1 had stated that he grabbed her wrist and pulled her in, the CCTV footage shows that 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 outside the lift while he finishes chatting with a guest who he knows and whom she also recognises as the celebrated photographer DW3 and then they enter the lift.”

The CCTV footage was shown to the alleged victim

According to the case notes, the Investigating Officer watched the CCTV footage on the 21st of November 2013. She registered an FIR against my father the next day, and on the 28th of the same month she showed the footage to the alleged victim during the ‘scene of offence panchnama’, following which the latter’s account of the alleged incident changed. This is the same footage we were not given access to for close to two years. An excerpt from the IO’s cross examination shows this to be true:

“Q. Was the unedited footage of the ground floor, first floor and second floor of block 7 of 7.11 .2013 and 8.11.2013 shown to the victim during the scene of offence panchanama?

Ans. Yes.”

“Q. Did you compare the statements made by the victim in her testimony to the CCTV footage of the guest lifts of block 7 of 7.11.2013 and 8.11.2013 at the time you drafted your complaint?

Ans. No.”

The IO’s unprofessional conduct on this matter was also highlighted in the trial court judgement:

“The IO admits that there are contradictions on viewing the unedited CCTV footage of 7.11.2013 and 8.11.2013 and the statements made by the Prosecutrix in her testimony and yet no supplementary statement is recorded by the I.O. in view of the same. It is crucial to note that the contradictions are often so glaring that the exact opposite of what the Prosecutrix is claiming actually happens on screen yet, the IO did not even question the Prosecutrix on the same.”

The court also noted that the IO had made no effort to secure the CCTV evidence by sealing the room in which the DVR was kept at the hotel:

“PW70, the Investigating Officr has agreed that she never took any steps to seal the housekeeping pantry room in which the DVR of block 7 was located...”

Destruction of CCTV footage that could corroborate the defence

The elevator in which the alleged incident took place lies in Block 7 of the Grand Hyatt hotel in Bambolim, Goa. Block 7 is not some high-rise, it has a ground floor, a first floor and a second floor. There were CCTV cameras installed outside the elevator doors on each of these floors. Multiple prosecution witnesses, including the IO herself, claim to have seen the footage from all three floors, but the footage from the first floor was never submitted in evidence. From the very beginning it has been our defence that the alleged victim and my father mistakenly alighted on the first floor, thinking it to be the second floor, and walked to the end of the corridor before realising their mistake and turning back. This defence could never be properly examined because the evidence seemingly “disappeared”. The sessions court judge took grave cognisance of this matter and mentioned it several times in her judgement:

“The further course of action adopted by the PW70, the Investigating Officer makes it clear as to how she went about selectively retaining only the ground and second floor footage, and completely destroying the first floor CCTV footage of the guest lifts of Block 7.”

“…the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Investigating Officer tampered with and destroyed the CCTV footage of the 1st floor guest lifts of block 7 since it would conclusively corroborate the defence of the accused.”

“Yet, there is no explanation or attempt on part of either the IO and her team or the Prosecution to investigate how this footage suddenly disappeared from the hard disks. Till the last date of hearing, the prosecution has not shown the CCTV footage of the 1st floor to the Court, which only goes to show that either the CCTV footage has been destroyed by the Investigating Officer as it corroborates the defence of the accused or that the CCTV footage is in the DVR and that it confirms the defence of the accused.”

Continued in Part III

Since my father was convicted on a false charge of rape a little over two weeks ago, I have waited patiently for any independent media organisation to report on the evidence in the case and underscore the malafide intent and conduct of the Goa police in its investigation. There is a trove of information within the case files that ought to be uncovered and decoded, but no such report has been forthcoming.

Now that the initial shock of his conviction has passed and the first bilious wave of social media hate has washed over me, I find myself compelled to list the insidious ways in which the Goa police framed a case that should not exist. Most points that I make here are corroborated by quotes from the trial court judgement or by witness statements from cross examination. As there is a laundry list of facts to consider, I will be posting this series in four parts, starting with the most basic facts that need to be reiterated, and concluding with the most absurd that defy all reason.

The FIR against Tarun Tejpal was filed by the Goa Police

There seems to be a widespread misunderstanding that the alleged victim filed the FIR against my father. The fact bears repeating that no, she did not. The alleged victim is just a prosecution witness in the case, and the FIR was filed suo moto (or of its own accord) by the Goa Police. The trial court judgement notes:

“The letter of complaint was composed 11 days after the alleged incident, in consultation with advocates, journalists, friends, family and confidants. The Goa police took suo moto cognisance of the case and filed an FIR, and subsequently arrested the accused.”

The officer who filed the FIR is also the officer who investigated the case

The duty of the investigating officer in any case is to conduct a fair investigation. Is it not then suspicious that the officer who filed the FIR and made the complaint is the very same person investigating it? At the trial court, the judge found:

“The above evidence of P 70 therefore clearly shows despite the availability of another Lady Police Inspector of the Crime Branch, the Investigating Officer and her superiors malafidely retained the investigation with PW70 who was the complainant.”

Continued in Part II

At that time, as it is true now, the BJP was in power both in the state and at the centre.

The ensuing media coverage too was both disappointing and biased. Shortly after the acquittal, I wrote to the editor of The Wire requesting fair and impartial coverage. Unfortunately they chose not to publish my letter on their website. It is placed here for your consideration.

27th May, 2021

Dear Mr. Varadarajan,

I am a regular reader of The Wire, and also the daughter of Tarun J Tejpal. I have long appreciated the reportage of The Wire, but am disconcerted by the report titled “Acquiting Tejpal, Goa Court Faults Both Police Investigation and Woman’s Behaviour” published on your website on the afternoon of 26^th May. The contents of the report are so selective, out-of-context and biased, that it leads me to believe that the reporter did not in fact read the 527-page judgement, but perhaps simply reproduced content shared with her by the prosecution.  If it was indeed fully read,  it must not have been read thoroughly , which is understandable given that the lengthy judgement was released less than 24 hours before the report appeared.

The report paints the acquittal of my father as the fault of shoddy investigation and an insensitive judge rather than a result of his innocence and the on-record evidence of omissions, manipulations, and lies of the prosecution and Investigating Officer. The reporter also conveniently missed including crucial sections of  the judgement for her readers. These are readers who are not expected to plod through a voluminous legal document, and who depend on your publication for unbiased and essential coverage.

The key evidence in this case is the CCTV footage that documents the outside of the elevator where the rape is alleged to have occurred over a period of 120 seconds in a two-storey block of a packed five-star hotel in Goa in November 2013. The entry and exit to the elevator on both days were described in granular detail by the complainant when she made her allegations. The judgement on this says: 

“Further, the evidence in this case, in the form of CCTV footage shows the prosecutrix’s narrative to be a change about the events that preceded their entry and followed their exit from the lifts on both days. The CCTV shows a change to the prosecutrix’s narrative both of the physical circumstances of the moments and of her claims of distress, tears, trauma and resistance.”

It goes on to say on a later page, about day two of the alleged assault:

“It is crucial to note that while in her complaint PW1 has stated that he grabbed her wrist, and pulled her in, the CCTV footage shows that 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 outside the lift while he finishes chatting with a guest…”

The complainant initially claimed that she was restrained in the closed, moving elevator for the duration of the alleged assault by the accused pressing random buttons to keep the lift in circuit. However, the evidence on record finds that:

“… much prior to the cross-examination of the prosecutrix on this aspect 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 in her previous statements…”

Given this debunking, she later changed her version to say that the elevator was halted by the accused pressing a single button. Her unchanging claim, in these various versions, was that the lift doors had not opened even once in this duration. However, the court found that:

“The CCTV footage of the guest lifts of the ground floor clearly shows that the left guest lift (the relevant one) was in motion during the two minutes of the alleged incident of 7/11/2013 and that the doors of the left lift opened atleast twice on the ground floor. As the CCTV footage of the guest lifts of the first floor is destroyed by the Investigating Officer, one does not know how many times the lift opened on the 1^stfloor…” 

The judgement also states that:

“It is crucial to note that the contradictions are often so glaring that the exact opposite of what the prosecutrix is claiming actually happens on screen yet, the IO did not even question the prosecutrix on the same.” 

The real weight of this judgement rests on the empirical evidence on record that includes the CCTV footage and the mechanism of the elevator in question. In his only statement issued from Delhi prior to his arrest, on 22 November 2013, my father called for the public release of the CCTV footage available. The judgement takes cognisance of this, and says:

“… the accused immediately on knowing that the FIR was registered made a public press statement that the police should obtain all CCTV footage available so that the truth surfaces, knowing that the CCTV footage would reveal the truth and he would be exonerated.”

Your report could have considered mentioning that this CCTV footage, the “most neutral evidence in the case”, was not supplied to us, the defense, until we approached the Supreme Court. Even then, the clone copy of the CCTV footage was finally handed over by the prosecution to the defense a full two years after the SC directive. As it happens, valuable evidence had disappeared by this time and the court found that:

“…the IO appears to have deliberately delayed seizure of the DVR until 29/11/2013 and in the meantime destroyed the CCTV footage of the first floor of 7/11/2013, thereby destroying clear proof of the accused’s defense.”

Your reporter also took some pains to describe the “controversial remarks on women’s behaviour” by the judge. The remarks quoted here are completely out-of-context and seem to have been reproduced for sensationalism not journalism. The statements that were selected for publication came in the context of the prosecutrix’s own statements on her behaviour that were falsified by the video or photographic evidence in the case records, but this was not reported by The Wire.  If in fact one reads the judgement carefully, they will find that the judge has made every effort to preserve the dignity of the proceedings. The judgement glosses over any number of whatsapp messages as these messages:

“…were shown to the prosecutrix as she was suppressing relevant facts and not for proving her character or consent for which the objection was raised. The said messages are accordingly glossed over”.

Much ado has been made about certain emails sent in 2013 that have repeatedly been labelled “confessions” by members of the prosecution. The judgement clearly and plausibly traces the chain of events and circumstances leading to these emails. The judgement states that:

“However, a bare reading of the alleged personal apology categorically shows that his emails neither implicitly nor explicitly makes any admissions or confessions which PW1 demanded in the apology, or with relation to any other offence with which the accused was charged, and is clearly therefore not an apology but an attempt to assuage any discomfort the prosecutrix might have post facto felt…” 

In the near eight years since he was arrested, neither my father nor anyone from our family has made public statements. We have however cooperated fully with the Goa government and the police in the interest of a fair trial, despite the immense emotional and financial stress it has caused us. In this time we have been subject to a vicious media trial, and the intense ire of activists and citizens, none of whom have ever seen the evidence on record as the court proceedings were held in-camera as is the norm in such cases.

As a woman and activist myself, I was and am dejected to see activism that has been directed entirely by outrage, and not the spirit of inquiry and the pursuit of truth. I am also aware that the solidarity statement made prematurely by the Network of Women in Media, even before the release of the  judgement, was not endorsed by all members. There is no doubt that women across India and the world face challenges and violence that are unimaginable to men. However it is unconscionable to sacrifice the truth in the hope of making “an example” out of an innocent person.

The binary in this and in all cases of justice, universally, ought to be truth and lies, not man and woman.

As a rare independent media house in India, I am sure The Wire has felt pushback from the state on innumerable occasions. It is thus surprising to me that The Wire has not taken a critical view of the trajectory of this case and the role of the state. It may be noted that not only did the Goa government file a suo motocase of rape against my father, but it instated an Investigating Officer who is also the official complainant in the case, in breach of all norms.  Not only did the former Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar make undue comments on the case, the current Chief Minister made a public statement that the state would appeal the judgement in the High Court, mere hours after the verdict and prior to the written judgement even being released.  Does it befit a Chief Minister of a state to be targeting an individual, questioning the court, and committing state resources to an appeal without reading the judgement?

It is no secret that my father’s journalism career has set him at odds with the ruling party since 2001, and the malicious intent of the police and state in this prolonged trial is difficult to ignore. (For example, in order to deny him bail in the HC in 2014, an FIR was filed against him for conspiracy to break out of jail and help other prisoners escape!) This malafide intent is most visible in the destruction of evidence and the prosecution’s complete omission of perhaps the only contemporaneous witness in the case. The judgement notes:

“ N was the first person, the prosecutrix met virtually minutes after emerging from the lift post the alleged incident of  7/11/2013, a fact which the prosecutrix completely hid during the investigation, and in her evidence before this Court, despite the crucial role that a nearly contemporaneous witness plays in any investigation.”

“ It is also very important to note that despite there being a reference to Nikhil being the first person the prosecutrix had met, in her draft complaint of 16/11/2013, a reference which she later deleted, the IO did not do any investigation…”

The said witness was ultimately called upon by the defence.

The judgement is 527 pages long, and it is not my intention to regurgitate the entire document to you via this email. An impartial reading of the judgement will show that the judge has appreciated and addressed all the evidence brought to court, by the prosecution and the defense (prosecution: 71 witnesses; defence: 4 witnesses).

I was 23 years old when this case was registered and have spent every day since then believing in my father’s innocence but holding my tongue until the facts could be laid out in the courtroom by a judge. Throughout this letter I refer to my father as “we” because the impact and damage of the accusations have been felt by every member of our family, not just him as the accused (and now acquitted).  In the intervening years my family and I have faced innumerable indignities, including being labeled “rape apologists”, violations of our privacy, and the abject disregard of our rights. Additionally, the unwarranted and despicable harassment of members of my family and some friends on social media screams of a vigilante cancel culture that has crossed all boundaries of reason and decency. There is no power on earth that can return the past eight years of lost opportunities, energy, resources and time to my family. 

As I write to you, on the afternoon of May 27, I am made aware that no less than the Solicitor General of India is appearing on behalf of the Goa state at the High Court. Please take a minute to appreciate that the second highest law officer in the country has been summoned to appeal against the verdict of the court.  Is this judgement truly amongst the most pressing legal issues in a country that is currently being crippled by a pandemic? The subtext is for all to read and infer.

I am aware that you are a mentor to the prosecutrix’s husband, but write to you in the faith that The Wire truly stands for what it advertises: “let’s give them the facts”, not “let’s give them selective facts that suit the narrative we are comfortable with”. If you choose to publish this letter, I request that you do so in its entirety.

Thank you for your time,

Cara Tejpal

But before all this, I was 11 years old when my father’s office was raided and he and his colleagues hounded by the state in the aftermath of Tehelka’s Operation Westend. An investigation that exposed unconscionable corruption in arms procurement by the BJP government. A story that led to the resignation of the then Defence Minister, as well as the sitting president of the party.

Then I was 17, when Tehelka’s Operation Kalank exposed the hand of the highest officer of the state, then Chief Minister Narendra Modi, in the horrific Gujarat riots of 2002 that saw the unchecked slaughter of dozens of innocent Muslims. These recordings were authenticated by the CBI.

Tehelka’s journalism was independent and fearless in a way never replicated since. It also brought the ire of the state upon its founding editor - my father, Tehelka’s journalists, investors, and my family. Other than Operation Westend and Operation Kalank, there was the Godhra SIT Report leak, the Sohrabuddin Sheik false encounter reportage, the Ishrat Jahan encounter expose… and umpteen other stories that spoke truth to power and demanded accountability from the powers that be.

Tarun Tejpal was more than a thorn in the side of the BJP government, and what better way to silence him than to portray him as the most reviled of all sinners - a rapist. Such a genius stroke; anyone who dare question the assertion invites the wrath of the righteous public.

I’ve seen my father lauded as a hero, I’ve seen him metaphorically lynched as a “rapist”. At 23, when he was first arrested, I was so terrified of speaking the truth. So browbeaten and sickened by the insane media circus that it all entailed. In my naïveté , i held strong to my belief in justice and truth and India.

I’m not that 23 year old anymore. I’m 36 and I couldn’t give a fuck about being called a ‘rape apologist’ or ‘child of rapist’ or whatever vile slur is used against me.

The truth is the truth. No court, no prime minister, no godi media can take that from us.  From you, I have no ask beyond that you read the actual facts of the case, not just the headlines and uninformed frenzied virtue-signalling.

Satyameva Jayate.