Prima facie: Betrayed and violated | |||||
| SAMYABRATA RAY GOSWAMI Sunday , December 1 , 2013 | |||||
Panaji, Nov. 30: From royals to editors, toilet travails in prison have buckled powerful knees. Confident in the morning and “stoic and silent” in the evening when his anticipatory bail plea was rejected, Tarun Tejpal was in tears by 9.30pm when Goa police formally arrested him and directed him to a crummy toilet in the lockup at the Dona Paula CID crime branch police post. It was a throwback to Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia’s time at Delhi’s Tihar jail during the Emergency: it is believed the prison’s Indian-style squat toilet drove her to make up with Indira Gandhi and get a reprieve. Tejpal had walked into the Goa sessions court in the morning accompanied by a battery of lawyers and their assistants from Delhi and Mumbai, his family and a bodyguard. His friend Sanjoy Roy, convener of the Jaipur Literature Festival, later said the “bodyguard” was a family member. Tejpal sat in one of the last rows at the courtroom, flanked by his sister, wife, brother and two daughters. Initially, the family seemed tense as defence lawyer Geeta Luthra sought anticipatory bail, invoking an individual’s right to personal liberty. Tejpal’s wife Geetan covered her face and leaned against a steel almirah in the courtroom. Tejpal kept looking straight ahead but soon closed his eyes. He then held his head in his hands. Geetan prayed, the two daughters looked nervous, brother Minty and sister Neena sat expressionless. Judge Anuja Prabhudesai heard Luthra for over an hour and the prosecution for nearly the same time. At 11.40am, the court adjourned till 4.30pm. Tejpal headed to Taj Vivanta for “a quick lunch and huddle with his legal team” as one of his lawyers put it. “He had a complete meltdown at the hotel,” said a source in the legal team. “He screamed, ‘Please stop this somehow, I don’t want to be in police custody’.” After a while, the police asked him to go to the CID office at Dona Paula, 6km away, for questioning. That is where he stayed till the court rejected his plea around 8.15pm. His formal arrest followed at 9.20pm. By then, his family had waited nearly four hours with journalists, lawyers and policemen. The long wait made everybody restless; the humidity made all grumpy. But the Tejpal women, the only family members in the court now, were unusually relaxed. They chatted easily with family friend Sanjoy, made plans for a drink and dinner, and even discussed the discos of Goa. Requests for brief chats from reporters were met with “our lawyers have advised us not to talk”. Soon, their Mumbai lawyers, Zulfikar and Pervez Memon, shook their hands warmly and left: they had to catch the 8.30pm flight to Mumbai. The elder daughter, a friend of the alleged victim, got her picture clicked inside the courtroom by Sanjoy and traipsed in and around the courtroom. Many began to see their easy manner as a sign of confidence in the outcome of the plea. Even when the judge rejected the plea summarily, the women kept chatting unmindful of her. After a while, unable to understand or hear what the judge was saying in the noisy court, they asked reporters about the order. They texted furiously for a while and then left quietly for Dona Paula as Luthra got the judge to agree to home food, home clothes and clean sheets from home for Tejpal. The family was in the CID office 20 minutes later. Initially, the police did not let them meet Tejpal but they somehow slipped in one by one. The police would not confirm whether they met the accused. Tejpal was taken for a medical examination. Then, keeping his request for a better toilet in mind, among various other considerations, the police took him to the lockup at the Goa police headquarters in Panaji. Tejpal apparently liked the loo there. Tarun Tejpal was arrested on Saturday night after his anticipatory bail plea was rejected by a Goa court. District and sessions judge Anuja Prabhudesai explained in detail in the 25-page order why Tejpal was not granted anticipatory bail. The order is the first formal judicial statement in the case. The following are some of the points mentioned by the judge Prima facie indication: The statement of the victim and the documents in the form of emails... prima facie indicate that the applicant (Tejpal), who was her mentor and father figure, had not only outraged her modesty but had misused his position, betrayed her trust and violated her body. The material on record prima facie indicates that the applicant (Tejpal) is involved in committing acts which constitute offences under Section 354A (outraging the modesty of a woman) and 376 (2) (K) (custodial rape) of IPC. If proved guilty, Section 354A entails imprisonment up to seven years and Section 376 (2) (K) up to life Delay in complaint: Although there was delay in reporting the matter to the managing editor, it is not material at this stage. (The Tejpal legal team had laid stress on the delay.) The delay in lodging the report is not necessarily fatal and can always be explained. The yardstick of unexplained delay in filing an FIR, which usually goes in favour of the accused, cannot be applied in cases involving sexual offences. The victims of such crime undergo physical as well as mental trauma and humiliation. Their reputation, dignity, honour, future prospects and financial security are at stake and often the victims and their family members are subjected to social ridicule. These circumstances often lead to delay in reporting the incident. The veracity of the complainant or the statement of the victim cannot be doubted on the ground of delay Colleagues’ version: Although such corroboration is not strictly necessary, the statement of her colleagues prima facie corroborates her version Details: The judge said the details of the emails need not be reproduced. She also said the girl’s version, at this stage, need not be sieved, sifted, weighed and appreciated Non-consent: The judge said the email correspondence prima facie indicated that Tejpal had not disputed the incident. The initial correspondence indicated that he was aware the victim was not a consenting party but it was only at a later stage that he had changed his version. The insinuations that the victim was a consenting party or the alleged act was only light-hearted bantering cannot be accepted Custodial interrogation: Success in interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. It is held that very often, interrogation in such condition would be reduced to a mere ritual Political pressure: The applicant has nowhere stated in his application that the victim has made the accusation under political pressure or at the behest of any party Disgrace claim: The material on record prima facie reveals that the applicant... had subjected the victim to ignominy, humiliation and disgrace. Hence, the applicant cannot claim bail on the ground that his arrest would curtail his personal liberty or will cause ignominy, humiliation and disgrace Tried to influence: The applicant is not only an influential person but the record prima facie indicates that the applicant tried to influence the family of the victim and the possibility of the applicant interfering with the evidence cannot be ruled out Liberty balance: The court has to maintain a fine balance between societal interest vis-a-vis personal liberty. The offences alleged are crimes against women and society in general and, if not properly investigated, can destroy the psyche of women and the basic fabric of the society. Offences of such nature fall in a different category and justify custodial interrogation. |
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1131201/jsp/frontpage/story_17631316.jsp#.UpqLt9IW02c