Tarun Tejpal case: Goa court defers pronouncement of verdict third time

Panaji(Goa) A fast track sessions court in Goa on Wednesday has deffered the pronouncement of verdict in the Tarun Tejpal case for third time to May 21. Mapusa town,the North Goa town, where the court is situated has been without electricity for the third day running, following heavy rain and stormy winds in the wake of the Cyclone Tauktae,.

A PTI report qouted Public prosecutor Francis Tavora saying reporters outside the court that Additional Sessions Judge Kshama Joshi said she could not pronounce the order due to "power failure".

Tejpal, the former Tehelka editor-in-chief was present in the court on Wednesday, along with some of his family members and lawyers. He refused to speak to reporters after the court adjourned pronouncement of the verdict in the case. Media persons were barred from entering the court.

Earlier, the court was to deliver the verdict on April 27, but the judge had adjourned it to May 12. On May 12, it was further adjourned to May 19. The court had then said the adjournment was due to lack of staff due to the coronavirus pandemic.

Advocate Rajeev Gomes, who was Tejpal's lead defence lawyer in the case, also died due to Covid-related complications last week.

Heavy police security was deployed around the court building, located in Mapusa town near the state capital Panaji.

The Goa police registered an FIR against Tejpal in November 2013 following which he was arrested. He has been out on bail since May 2014. The Goa crime branch had filed a charge sheet against Tejpal.

The former editor-in-chief of the Tehelka investigative magazine has been accused by a junior colleague of sexually assaulting her inside the elevator of a luxury hotel in Goa in 2013

He faced trial under IPC 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 position of authority over women, committing rape) and 376(2)k) (rape by person in position of control).

He had earlier moved the Bombay High Court, seeking a stay on the framing of charges against him, but his petition was dismissed