Tarun Tejpal case: Law has changed, police must follow

mangaloretoday.com

New Delhi, December 2, 2013: When Goa Police acted promptly against former Tehelka editor Tarun Tejpal and registered an FIR in an alleged sexual assault he carried out on November 7 and 8 at a hotel there, they came across as an unusually smart bunch of cops who knew how to use the law well.

In India, where the police exhibit an uncharacteristic lack of sensitivity in matters concerning sexual offences, the handling of the case came as a welcome break from the past.

 

Goa Police’s careful use of the amended sexual assault law showed a good understanding of how to apply the law rather than archaic stick wielding and torture techniques to nail the accused.


More often than not, the police sit on victims’ complaints even when a cognisable offence is made out.

In this matter, the police used its power under Section 154 of the CrPC that says a police officer can file an FIR based on not just the victim’s or a witness’s complaint but from information received from any other source.

The police based its investigation on news reports and after conducting a preliminary enquiry, an inspector of Goa Police filed the FIR.

Apart from rape, Tejpal has also been charged under Section 376 (2)(k) - rape by a person in a position of control or dominance over a woman - that is punishable with 10 years in jail.

There are reports now that Tejpal is being subjected to a potency test.  He is charged with rape under the new, amended law, the Criminal Amendment Act 2013. The act clearly substitutes sexual intercourse with a wider array of acts that constitute rape. These include inserting "any object or a part of the body" into the vagina, urethra or anus of a woman, to constitute rape.


When any part of the body or a foreign object can be used to commit rape, then a potency test on the accused is not only an absurdity but an unnecessary distraction from the due process.

The prosecution often fails to secure conviction in cases relating to heinous crimes. The amended laws have more teeth and plug many loopholes. But the investigators would do better to focus on the offence rather than trying to follow archaic practices that are not relevant to the matter at hand.