PANAJI: The extra actions court, Mapusa, that uttered Tehelka founder-editor Tarun Tejpal on Friday, remarked on the night of the alleged rapethat there was”just drunken banter” between the survivor and the accused. The court noted that the prosecutrix (survivor) couldn’t be known as trusted and reliable after she failed to demonstrate an email into the courtroom and included the”prosecutrix would like to conceal something”. The email, ” the judge stated, was applicable to this situation. “The messaging album indicates that it was completely the standard because of the prosecutrix (survivor) to own these flirtatious and sexual discussions with acquaintances and friends,” estimate Kshama Joshi stated. “Hence the WhatsApp talks of the prosecutrix and her own propensity to indulge in sensual conversations with acquaintances and friends, in addition to her entry that the accused had been speaking about gender or want because that’s what the accused generally decided to talk to her around sadly, not her job, proves the accused along with the prosecutrix had a flirtatious talk during the night of November 7, 2013,” she explained. Thinking about the evidence about these messages,” the court stated,”the conversation clearly indicates there was just juvenile banter between them”, there was”zero denying of the same from the herd”. The court said that”CCTV footage doesn’t support the announcement that she had been in shock or injury and trapping in tears”. “Proof of witnesses along with printouts of photos clearly show that the prosecutrix was completely at a fantastic mood, happy, ordinary, grinning, and didn’t seem bothered or traumatised in any way at all, though that was instantly a couple of moments after she claims to have been sexually attacked again from an accused,” the judge stated. “It’s very revealing the prosecutrix’s accounts demonstrates any type of normative behavior on her part — which a prosecutrix of sexual attack on two successive nights could plausibly reveal, nor does it show such a behavior on the part of the accused” The court also asked as to the reason why the issuer didn’t disclose the alleged rape incident to her coworkers following the episode. The court said that the exemptions denied to choose a medical evaluation. “There is not any medical proof on record due to delay in lodging the FIR and also the prosecutrix denied to undergo medical evaluation,” the court stated. About the prosecution claim of the apology delivered by the accused, the court observed,”A bare reading of their alleged private apology shows his email neither implicitly or expressly creates each one of their admissions or confessions that the survivor required from the apology, or even with terms of some offence where the accused had been charged, and also is obviously therefore an apology but an effort to assuage any distress that the prosecutrix may have post-facto felt” The defence attorney argued that there’s considerable evidence on record to prove that the alleged private apology has been the consequence of inducement, promise and suggested threat because of this complaint made against the accused.