This order decides nothing on the merits of the appeal. The refusal of suspension is expressly on a prima facie view and at this stage; the appeals will be heard in due course, and the State's plea for enhancement has only been admitted, not decided. The record of proceedings states neither the offence charged nor the length of the sentence.
- Case
- Tarunjit Tejpal v. The State of Goa
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- M.M. Sundresh; Prasanna B. Varale
- Case numbers
- Criminal Appeal No. 4082 of 2026; SLP (Crl.) No. 15832 of 2026; Diary No. 50909 of 2026
- Outcome
- Interim order: application for suspension of sentence dismissed; leave granted in the State's special leave petition seeking enhancement; appeals listed for hearing in due course.
The decision
The Supreme Court has refused to suspend the sentence of Tarunjit Tejpal while his appeal is pending. A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale heard the application for suspension of sentence on 6 November 2026 and held that, on a prima facie view, it was not a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence. The application accordingly stands dismissed, and the appeals will be listed for hearing in due course.
In the connected matter, the court granted leave in the State of Goa's special leave petition, SLP (Crl.) No. 15832 of 2026, which seeks enhancement of the sentence imposed on the applicant. Grant of leave means the enhancement plea will be heard with the appeals; it decides nothing about whether the sentence should in fact be enhanced.
The appeal and the applicant's case
The appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 4082 of 2026, is against a High Court judgment that reversed the acquittal rendered by the trial court. The applicant's counsel submitted that the trial court had considered the evidence in extenso and disbelieved the prosecution case, particularly that of the prosecutrix.
It was further submitted that the evidence about CCTV footage, and the fact that the lift in which the occurrence is stated to have happened opens automatically whenever it stops, had not been duly taken into consideration, and that the occurrence was stated to have happened within a short span of time. The evidence of PW-4 was said to dispute the prosecution case. The applicant, it was submitted, had been in custody pending trial and has been under incarceration for a total period of nine months, is not a flight risk, and had made a fervent plea for suspension of the sentence.
The State's opposition
The Solicitor General and the Additional Solicitor General, appearing with the Advocate General for Goa, opposed suspension. They submitted that the High Court had considered the evidence in extenso, and that the trial court had, in the High Court's view, put the prosecutrix on trial as against the applicant.
They further submitted that the apology emails and text messages sent by the applicant, read along with the ocular version of the prosecution witnesses, would clearly show that the occurrence happened as projected by the prosecution, and that since the High Court had considered the relevant material, there was no need for suspension of the sentence at this stage.
Why suspension was refused
The court confined itself to the suspension question. It held that, though the applicant contended that the trial court had considered the material on record while rendering an acquittal, on a prima facie view — particularly with respect to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, read with the material on record with specific reference to the apology emails and text messages — it did not find a fit case for grant of suspension of sentence.
The court also recorded that the prosecutrix was working under the applicant, that the father of the prosecutrix and the applicant were friends, and that the prosecutrix and the daughter of the applicant were also friends. From that, it said, it could not be said that there was a motive on the part of the prosecutrix to implicate the applicant. On that prima facie view, the court was not inclined to suspend the sentence.
What happens next
The refusal of suspension does not end the litigation. The criminal appeal and the State's special leave petition, in which leave has now been granted, will be listed for hearing in due course, when the court will examine the merits of the conviction and of the State's plea for enhancement. Until then, the sentence continues to operate, and the applicant remains in custody.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
Suspension of sentence pending appeal is an interim, discretionary relief, and this order shows how narrowly the court approaches it. The court did not re-try the case or record findings on who should ultimately be believed; it asked only whether, on a first look at the prosecution evidence together with the apology emails and text messages, the case for suspending the sentence was made out. That is the meaning of a prima facie view: a provisional assessment for the interim stage, not a conclusion on the merits.
Two features of the order are worth noting. First, the court treated the absence of a motive to implicate as relevant to the interim assessment, because the prosecutrix worked under the applicant and the two families knew each other. Second, the court paired the refusal with leave in the State's enhancement petition, so that when the appeal is heard, the sentence will be examined from both directions — the applicant seeking acquittal and the State seeking a higher sentence.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- What did the court decide on the suspension application, and on what basis did it say it was deciding?
- What material did the State rely on to oppose suspension, and what did the court say about the prosecutrix's motive?
- What remains undecided after this order, and what is the effect of leave being granted in the State's petition?
