The additional district and sessions court in Mapusa on Wednesday adjourned the cross-examination of the victim in connection with the alleged rape case involving Tehelka founder and former editor Tarun Tejpal to November after Tejpal’s lawyer sought adjournment due to health condition. The court has now fixed the next hearing for cross-examination on November 11, 12, 13, and 14.
The court is likely to pass an order on October 31 on objection raised by prosecution pertaining to legal issue on admissibility of the questions to be asked to the victim during the cross-examination. The prosecution on Tuesday had raised objection following which both parties argued on Wednesday also.
On Wednesday, hearing was held in open court as in-camera cross-examination of the victim was adjourned on the second day, that is, Tuesday after Tejpal’s lawyer Shrikant Shivade sought adjournment over health issue. Following which, the judge fixed the next hearing for cross-examination in November, also after considering whether it would be convenient for the victim and following assurances from defense lawyer of concluding the cross-examination during the next round of hearing.
Special public prosecutor advocate Francisco Tavora along with assistant public prosecutor advocate Cyndiana Silva was present for the hearing. While the alleged accused Tarun Tejpal along with his advocate Shrikant Shivade and his associate and advocate Rajeev Gomes were also present. So also investigating officer DySP Sunita Sawant and the victim were present at the court premises.
“The court adjourned the matter due to medical condition
of Tejpal’s lawyer Shrikant Shivade. Now the matter will be heard from November
11 to 14,” said special public prosecutor Francisco
On Monday, in- camera trial had resumed in the alleged rape case involving Tehelka founder and former editor Tarun Tejpal before additional district and sessions court at Mapusa wherein the victim was cross-examined. The same continued on Tuesday also. The hearing was heard by Judge Kshama Joshi wherein the victim was cross-examined by defense lawyers. Since the matter was conducted in-camera only the lawyers from prosecution and defense were allowed in the court at the time of examination besides the victim and the alleged accused.