Five path-breaking principles on criminal jurisprudence that emerge from the Goa Sessions Court's Tarun Tejpal judgment

Note: This is a work of satire and does not reflect the correct legal position. The observations attributed to the sessions court are, however, accurate and have been taken from the judgment.

The Goa court judgment acquitting Tarun Tejpal has carved out some "path- breaking" principles of criminal jurisprudence.

This piece is an attempt to cull out some of these principles on the basis of which the Court acquitted Tejpal in its 527-page long judgment.

1. Court’s observation: Prosecutrix had contacted lawyers and members of the National Commission for women prior to drafting her complaint.

Deduction: If a rape/sexual assault victim contacts lawyers for help in drafting complaint, it could he held against her during the trial.

Conclusion: Complainants should see to it that they do not take help of lawyers while drafting complaints regarding sexual harassment.

2. Court’s observation: Senior Advocate Rebecca John guided her through the course of action.

Deduction: The fact that a lawyer guided a client/friend through the legal process could be held unfavourably against the client during trial.

Conclusion: Do not take guidance from lawyers while going through the legal process to initiate action against accused.

3. Court’s observation: A woman rights lawyer was also assisting and guiding the prosecutrix on how she should be making her statements during the investigation.

Deduction: Women rights lawyers assisting and guiding a complainant on statements made to investigating authorities could be held adversely against the complainant.

Conclusion: Woman rights lawyers should not, henceforth, guide rape complainants on how to make statements. Complainants should desist from taking such assistance.

4. Court’s observation: The call records of the prosecutrix show that she was also in contact with Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who according to a prosecution witness, is a lawyer and a feminist. There was a call exchange between the prosecutrix and Jaising after the allegations against Tejpal became public.

Deduction: Having telephone calls with feminist lawyers can be held against rape complainants.

Conclusion: Do not have telephonic conversations with Senior Advocates who are feminists or save their contact number on mobile phone.

5. Court’s observation: Prosecutrix is well-educated, a journalist by profession and is conversant with amendments to Indian Penal Code (IPC) after Nirbhaya’s case. She has written on issues relating to offences against women including rape and sexual harassment.

Deduction: Being well-educated, a journalist, or conversant with rape laws especially after the 2012 amendments, could be ground to hold adverse inference against a rape complainant.

Conclusion: Don’t go to school or college; do not take up journalism or make attempts to study IPC, particularly amendments to IPC.