Through CID CB, North Goa, Goa v. New Delhi – 14

Judgment

) 6th August 2026 I N D E X I. FACTS AND BACKGROUND........................................................3 II. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES..........................................13 A. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant………………………….13 B. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent………………………20 III. ANALYSIS....................................................................................30 A. Scope of interference of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.....................................................................................31 B. The charge against the Respondent and provisions of law.34 C. Probative value of the victim’s evidence..............................36 D. On CCTV footage..................................................................49 E. Omission to collect electronic evidence, material to the defence case…………................................................................................52 F. On apologies..........................................................................55 G. In connection with allegations of extortion by PW-1..........60 H. On the victim’s behaviour in the lead-up to and aftermath of the incidents and trauma................................................................63 I. Regarding the ‘Perfect victim’ construct...............................66 J. Exercising control and dominance over the victim..............68 K. On the defence evidence.......................................................70 IV. FINDING OF THE TRIAL COURT ……………………….………...72 V. CONCLUSION..............................................................................76 VI. THE SENTENCE ………………………………….……………..…….…….77 6th August 2026

1. This Appeal assails the Judgment and Order dated 21st May, 2021, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge at Mapusa in Sessions Case (Ors.) No. 10/ 2014, acquitting the Respondent herein (Original Accused) of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(k), 354, 354A, 354B, 341 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

2. By a reasoned Order dated 23rd April 2022, this Court opined that a prima facie case is made out and that arguable issues are raised by the Appellant-State of Goa, thereby necessitating deeper scrutiny and re-appreciation/reconsideration of the evidence to ascertain the correctness and legality of the Judgment and Order impugned herein. Hence, this Court allowed the Leave to Appeal Application and admitted the Appeal. I. FACTS AND BACKGROUND

3. Factual Overview & Allegations:

3.1. The Respondent was the Editor-in-Chief and owner of ‘Tehelka’ magazine. The victim was employed by the Respondent at Tehelka, initially as an intern, then as a trainee journalist, and later as a correspondent and a senior correspondent. At the relevant time, she held the designation of Principal Correspondent and worked in Tehelka's Mumbai office. 6th August 2026

3.2. Tehelka started a festival called ‘THiNK Fest’ in 2011 and continued to organise it annually in Goa. The victim was stated to be part of all three editions, in various capacities, as an employee of Tehelka.

3.3. At THiNK Fest – 2013, the victim was responsible for attending to and chaperoning the festival's Chief Guest, Mr Robert De Niro, a Hollywood actor. The festival was held from 07th November 2013 to 11th November 2013 at Grand Hyatt in Bambolim, Goa. The Incidents/Allegations

3.4. November 7, 2013 (approx. 10:20 p.m.): The victim’s allegations against the Respondent are that, on 7th November 2013, at around 10.20 p.m., the Respondent and the victim accompanied Mr De Niro to his room on the 2nd Floor of Block No. 7 of the hotel. After dropping Mr De Niro at his room, as the Respondent and the victim were leaving the lobby, the Respondent instructed her to accompany him back to Mr De Niro’s room to wake him up. The victim complied with his instruction, as he was her boss. Inside the lift, the Respondent sexually assaulted her, ignoring her pleas to stop. He manipulated the lift control panel to keep the doors closed. Later 6th August 2026 that night (approx. 1:30 a.m.), he sent her a text message on her phone reading "the finger tips".

3.5. November 8, 2013: Under the pretext of retrieving an item for Mr De Niro, the Respondent again ordered the victim to accompany him in the elevator, during which he committed a second sexual assault. Investigative & Procedural Timeline

3.6. On 21st November 2013, news of the Respondent's alleged sexual assault on a female journalist of Tehelka was published across various social media sites and electronic media channels. The victim had also sent an e-mail dated 18th November 2013 (Exhibit 733(1)) to Ms Suparna Chaudhury, alias Shoma Chaudhury, Managing Editor of Tehelka (PW-45), narrating the entire incident.

3.7. Shamina Shafiq (PW-38), a member of the National Commission for Women (‘NCW’), on its behalf, took suo motu cognizance of the media reports regarding the alleged sexual assault charge made by the victim against the Respondent and addressed a letter dated 22nd November 2013 (Exhibit 547) to the Director General of Police, Goa, requesting the registration of an FIR in the matter. 6th August 2026

3.8. On the basis of the news regarding the sexual assault allegation made by the victim against the Respondent, Ms Sunita Sawant, PI, CID-Crime Branch, Dona Paula (PW-70), the Investigating Officer (‘IO’), lodged a complaint, pursuant to which FIR No. 27/2013 dated 22nd November 2013 was registered against the Respondent at the CID CB Police Station, North Goa (Exhibit C-3), for offences punishable under Sections 354A, 376, and 376(2)(k) of the IPC.

3.9. Based on the investigation recorded in the FIR, the IO addressed a letter dated 02nd December 2013 to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panaji, Goa (‘JMFC’), seeking the addition of offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 376(2) (f) and 376-C of the IPC against the Respondent. Another letter dated 27th January 2014 was also addressed to the JMFC, Panaji, Goa, seeking the addition of an offence punishable under Section 354 of the IPC.

3.10. The offences punishable under Sections 376, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(k) and 354A of the IPC are exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Accordingly, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji, Goa, by Committal Order dated 21st February 2014 (Exhibit C-1), committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial. Charges Framed Against the Respondent 6th August 2026

3.11. By an Order dated 07th September 2017, the Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, Goa, framed charges against the Respondent (Exhibit 231-C) for offences punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 376(2)(f), 376(2)(k), 341 and 342 of the IPC. After the charges were framed, the Respondent pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried.

3.12. During the trial, the Prosecution examined 71 witnesses, while the defence examined 4. The witnesses are as follows: Prosecution Witnesses PW-1: Victim PW-2: Chetan Shivdas Patil, Nodal Officer, Bharati Airtel PW-3: Francis Pereira, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Cellular PW-4: Ganesh Ramrao Pawar, Nodal Officer, Bharati Airtel PW-5: Ashok Naik, Panch of Spot Panchnama PW-6: Siddharth Borkar, Panch, Panchnama of e- PW-7: Kanhoba Naik, Panch, Arrest Panchnama and Panchnama of Respondent’s mobile PW-8: Kiran Shirodkar, Panch – Attachment of Respondent’s clothes 6th August 2026 PW-9: Gangaram Narvekar, Panch, conversations between the victim and Suparna Chaudhury (PW-45) PW-10: Sarita Khaneja, CEO of Cyber Space Networking Systems PW-11: Ishan Tankha, Journalist at Tehelka and victim’s friend PW-12: Shougat Dasgupta, Journalist at Tehelka and victim’s friend PW-13: Raghu Amay Karnad, Journalist at Tehelka PW-14: M. Krishna, Assistant Director, CFSL, Hyderabad PW-15: Harsimran Gill alias Bicky, victim’s friend PW-16: Priyan Shivpalan, Safety and Security Manager at Grand Hyatt PW-17: Shyamsundar Borkar, Taxi Driver PW-18: Vasudev Bhat, Businessman – iTechnologix PW-19: Ashok Madaikar, Draughtsman PW-20: Sanjay Thakur, Panch, Seizure Panchnama of the CPU PW-21: Sunil Desai, IT Manager and Panch of the CCTV Panchnama conducted at Grand Hyatt PW-22: Harish Iyer, Panellist at THiNK Fest 6th August 2026 PW-23: Renu Kumar, Panch of Attachment of victim’s clothes PW-24: Khawaja Ayub Zickriya, General Manager of International Centre, Goa PW-25: Swapnil Chendwankar, Project Engineer for Siemens Limited PW-26: Mrs Martha Fernandes, Receptionist in Hotel Paradiso Casa PW-27: Shiva Naik, Taxi Business PW-28: Mahendra Bhandari, Police photographer, CID Crime Branch PW-29: Brendan D’Souza, PSI attached to CID Crime Branch, Dona Paula PW-30: Sudiksha Naik, PI attached to CID Crime Branch, Dona Paula PW-31: Praveen Gawas, PI attached to CID Crime Branch, Dona Paula PW-32: Virendra Veluskar, PI attached to CID Crime Branch, Dona Paula PW-33: Laxi Amonkar, PSI attached to CID Crime Branch, Dona Paula PW-34: Damodar Tari, Audio-Video Telecommunication technician at Grand Hyatt PW-35: Marcelo Leslie Remedios, Operations Manager of Freedom Holidays Pvt. Ltd. 6th August 2026 PW-36: Neena Tejpal Sharma, Respondent’s sister and Partner in Anant Media Pvt. Ltd. PW-37: Udayaditya Pathak, Regional Manager (Commerce) at Siemens Ltd. PW-38: Shamina Shafiq, Member of the National Commission for Women PW-39: Manguesh Tyagi, PI attached to Pandav Nagar Police Station, Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh PW-40: Shradha Garg, Businesswoman, Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh PW-41: Saty Narayan Sharma, Employee of Exclusive Vacation Pvt. Ltd. PW-42: Brij Kishor Sharma, Accounts Manager of Agni India Pvt. Ltd. (Anant Media Pvt. Ltd.) PW-43:

Prawal Srivastava, Consultant, IT, Anant Media Pvt. Ltd. PW-44: Ameen Abdul Jabbar, Lift Technician PW-45: Suparna Chaudhury alias Shoma Chaudhury, Journalist and Managing Editor of Tehelka PW-46: Amol Athanikar, Panch of Photograph Panchnama PW-47: Walter Pereira, Assistant Director of Food and Beverages, Grand Hyatt PW-48: Vivek Shenvi, Assistant Security Manager, Grand Hyatt 6th August 2026 PW-49: Pushparaj Gaude, Assistant Security Manager, Grand Hyatt PW-50: Satish Mahale, Security Team Leader, Grand Hyatt PW-51: Lavu Gawas, Security Team Leader, Grand Hyatt PW-52: Dilip Ghadi Gaonkar, Security Team Leader, Grand Hyatt PW-53: S. Vijayalaxmi, victim’s mother PW-54: Shripad Shankar Amonkar, Network Engineer for Goan Hotel and Clubs Pvt. Ltd. PW-55: Mario Rebello, Panch of attachment of Hard PW-56: G. Vishnu, Freelance Journalist PW-57: Shawn D’Sa, Security Team Leader, Grand Hyatt PW-58: Vismay Sawant, Security Team Leader, Grand Hyatt PW-59: Persis Sidhwa, Member of Majlis, an NGO PW-60: Rajesh Job, PI attached to CID Crime Branch, Dona Paula PW-61: Sreenivasan Jain alias Vasu, Journalist in NDTV PW-62: Ajachi Chakrabarti, Journalist and victim’s colleague 6th August 2026 PW-63: Rajiv Malekar, Employee in We Internet PW-64: Pooja Khedkar, Employee in We Internet PW-65: Aman Sethi, victim’s Partner/ Husband PW-66: Noel Noronha, Director of Engineering, Grand Hyatt PW-67: Yuvraj Torawane, Deputy Manager, Mitsubishi ETA India Pvt. Ltd. PW-68: Vishwesh Karpe, PI attached to Cyber Crime Police Station, Ribandar PW-69: Vikram Vijay Pimplapure, Employee of Mitsubishi ETA India Pvt. Ltd. PW-70: Sunita Sawant, Investigating Officer PW-71: Vijaykumar Salgaonkar, ASI attached to Crime Branch, Ribandar Defence Witnesses DW-1: Malika Singh, victim’s friend DW-2: Vijay Pandey, Photo Journalist in Tehelka DW-3: Rohit Chawla, Photo Journalist DW-4: Nikhil Agarwal

3.13. The Respondent’s statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was recorded. The Respondent’s defence is one of false implication. The Additional Sessions Judge at Mapusa, by its Judgment and Order dated 21st 6th August 2026 May 2021, acquitted the Respondent of all the offences charged against him. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State of Goa has preferred the present Appeal. By order dated 23rd April 2022, the application seeking Leave to Appeal was allowed, and the Appeal was admitted. The records and proceedings were called for and received.

4. Mr Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, appeared for the Appellant and Mr Aabad Ponda, learned Senior Counsel, represented the Respondent. II. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant:

5. Mr Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India, made the following submissions:

5.1. Mr Mehta emphasised that this is not a case of rape, simpliciter. The Respondent was the victim's employer, mentor, her father's friend, and the father of her close friend. He held a position of dominance, control, trust, and authority over her. Due to this abuse of authority, the charges against the Respondent fall under the specific aggravated categories of the IPC, namely Sections 376(2)(f) and (k). 6th August 2026

5.2. Mr Mehta argued that under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act (‘IEA’), when a victim states in her testimony that she did not consent in a prosecution under Section 376(2)(f) or (k), the Court must presume lack of consent. He contended that the victim's statement alone was legally sufficient for conviction and that the Trial Court failed to appreciate or apply this statutory presumption.

5.3. Mr Mehta argued that the Trial Court erroneously dismissed an extensive network of witnesses who corroborated the victim's account immediately after the incidents. Mr Mehta took the Court through the victim’s (PW-1) deposition, in which she narrated her ordeal on 07th November 2013 and 08th November 2013, in detail. He also took us through the depositions of Ishan Tankha, the victim’s friend (PW-11), and Shougat Dasgupta, another friend of the victim (PW-12), who corroborated the victim’s story. Another friend, G. Vishnu (PW- 56), and Raghu Karnad (PW-13), also corroborated the victim’s version as narrated to them. Mr Mehta further relied upon the depositions of the victim’s partner, whom she later married, Aman Sethi (PW-65); Harsimran Gill, her friend (PW-15); Harish Iyer (PW-22); her mother (PW-53); and Sreenivasan Jain (PW-61). 6th August 2026

5.4. Mr Mehta contended that despite PW-11, PW-12 and PW- 56 fully corroborating the victim’s version, the Trial Court erroneously rejected their testimony as false. The testimony of Aman Sethi (PW-65), the victim's partner, was unfairly dismissed by the court on the blanket assumption that he was an "interested witness."

5.5. Mr Mehta said that the trial court's logic was flawed because it refused to believe the victim on the "absurd" ground that it was implausible for her to confide in three male colleagues rather than her female room-mate.

5.6. Mr Mehta also took us through the victim’s cross- examination. She was subjected to an excessive and invasive cross-examination. Mr Mehta highlighted that the victim was subjected to a brutal cross-examination spanning nearly 700 pages across 18 separate hearing dates. The prosecution argued that the highly invasive questioning and aggressive attacks on her character made it seem as though "the victim and not the Respondent [was] on trial." The Trial Court not only failed to disallow these inappropriate and irrelevant questions but also subsequently used the resulting material to unfairly discredit the victim. 6th August 2026

5.7. Mr Mehta contended that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the victim had addressed a clear, written e-mail complaint to Suparna Chaudhury, Managing Editor (PW-45), detailing both instances of sexual assault, wrongful restraint, and confinement. Despite this clear, contemporaneous documentary evidence of the ordeal, the Trial Court still failed to invoke the mandatory legal presumption of lack of consent under Section 114A of the IEA.

5.8. According to Mr Mehta, the Respondent admitted, in two apology letters dated 19th November 2013 (Exhibit 733 (2) and 733 (3)), to an unwanted and forcible sexual encounter. By e- mail dated 18th November 2013, the victim had clearly conveyed the details of the sexual assault to Ms Suparna (PW-45). She had clearly communicated that she required a written apology from the Respondent and an acknowledgement of the same to be circulated within the organisation. Pursuant to this e-mail, the Respondent e-mailed a formal apology letter to the victim, expressing his unconditional regret for the shameful lapse of judgment that led him to attempt a sexual liaison with the victim despite her reluctance. He also sent an informal e-mail admitting the encounter and apologising for it. Mr Mehta contended that this apology itself amounts to an admission of guilt. Had the victim been lying about the incidents, the Respondent would 6th August 2026 have absolutely denied the accusation and not issued any apology. The Respondent’s defence that the said apology e-mails were sent under pressure is unbelievable in the circumstances.

5.9. Mr Mehta further contends that the victim herself had no intention to prosecute the Respondent. This is evident from the fact that her only demand was that the organisation constitute an Internal Complaints Committee (‘ICC’) under the Visakha Guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India to inquire into the Respondent’s conduct. Even though no such committee was constituted by PW-45, who was Managing Editor of Tehelka, the victim herself did not register any FIR. Ultimately, the complaint was registered by the IO (PW-70) on the basis of news appearing on various social media sites, press media, and the letter received by the Police from a member of the NCW. Mr Mehta says this demonstrates no ill-will or motivation on the part of the victim to prosecute the Respondent. However, once the FIR was registered and the law enforcement machinery was set in motion, the victim fully co-operated and stood her ground throughout the trial. This clearly shows the veracity of the victim’s accusation.

5.10. Mr Mehta further submitted that, admittedly, the Respondent was in a dominant position vis-à-vis the victim. The 6th August 2026 Trial Court ignored the victim’s deposition that the Respondent was her mentor and employer; her father’s friend; and the father of her close friend. The victim also stated that the Respondent was a powerful and well-connected person, in a position to ruin her career. Hence, Mr Mehta submits that the offences against the Respondent clearly fall within the category of aggravated offences under the IPC.

5.11. Having read the depositions of PW-1, i.e., the victim, and of the witnesses who have corroborated PW-1's testimony, Mr Mehta drew our attention to the Trial Court's findings, which are directly contrary to the evidence on record and per se perverse.

5.12. Mr Mehta tendered before us the report dated 23rd January 2013 of the committee under the chairmanship of Justice J. S. Verma (Retired) on amendments to the criminal law, drawing our attention to the object and jurisprudence behind introducing Section 114A to the IEA and the category of aggravated offences under Sections 375 and 376 of the IPC.

5.13. Mr Mehta, in conclusion, submitted that the instant case is a classic example of power dynamics at play. Whenever women speak the truth to power, power lashes out at them. This power differential enables power to vilify the victim. The present case also reveals the tendency to exercise superior power, whether in 6th August 2026 terms of wealth, social standing, or hierarchy in the workplace, to deprive a woman of her bodily autonomy.

5.14. Mr Mehta relied on the following decisions: 1) State   of   Himachal   Pradesh   v.   Hukum   Chand alias Monu1 2) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal2 3) State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh3 4) State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekari4 5) State   of   Maharashtra   v.   Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain5 6) Rai   Sandeep   alias   Deepu   v.   State   (NCT   of Delhi)6 7) State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh & Ors.7 8) Vishnu alias Undrya v. State of Maharashtra8 9) Rajinder   alias   Raju   v.   State   of   Himachal Pradesh9 10) Puran Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh10 11) Bodhisattwa   Gautam   v.   Subhra   Chakraborty (Ms)11 12) Visveswaran v. State Rep. By S.D.M.12 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 462 2 (2011) 2 SCC 550 3 (2004) 1 SCC 421 4 (2004) 8 SCC 153 5 (1990) 1 SCC 550 6 (2012) 8 SCC 21 7 (1996) 2 SCC 384 8 (2006) 1 SCC 283 9 (2009) 16 SCC 69 10 (2014) 5 SCC 689 11 (1996) 1 SCC 490 12 (2003) 6 SCC 73 6th August 2026 13) State   of   Jharkhand   v.   Shailendra   Kumar   Rai alias Pandav Rai13 14) Rosy & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.14 15) Achhar Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh15 16) Mahendran v. State of Tamil Nadu16 17) Gangadhar Behera & Ors. v. State of Orissa17 18) Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhatisgarh18 19) Vijay   Pal   v.   State   (Government   of   NCT   of Delhi)19 20) Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana20 21) Pappu Tiwari v. State of Jharkhand21 B.   SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:

6. Mr Aabad Ponda, learned Senior Counsel, made the following submissions:

6.1. At the outset, Mr Ponda emphasised the scope of an appellate court’s jurisdiction when entertaining an appeal against acquittal. He submitted that an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Consequently, an appellate court may interfere with an order of acquittal only if it finds manifest perversity in fact and law. He