We Report, You Decide

Aarushi case: Visible evidence cannot be ignored

Ghaziabad: Pulling up CBI for its "highly disappointing" move of filing a closure report in the Aarushi Talwar murder case, the special CBI Court held that "visible evidence" could not be ignored in making her parents accused and to stand trial in the case.

Special Judicial Magistrate Preeti Singh relied on a number of statements of the witnesses and entries in the case diary to come to the conclusion that Rajesh and Nupur Talwar should be put on trial for the murder of their daughter and servant Hemraj more than two years ago.

Rapping the CBI for filing the closure report, the court said in its 21-page order that "in the light of all the circumstantial evidence and witnesses in the case diary, it was expected that the investigator should have filed the chargesheet against Dr Rajesh and Nupur Talwar.

"In such a case where the incident has happened inside home, visible evidence cannot be ignored."

The court appeared to have taken serious note of the statement of Dr Sunil Kumar Dhore, who had conducted the post-mortern of the teenager.

His statement referred to an incident in which Dinesh Talwar, brother of Rajesh, handed over to him a mobile phone saying Dr Dogra (AIIMS specialist on post mortems) was on the line through whom Dhore was asked to pick up samples among others. "I (Dhore) said `don`t worry. Whatever is important will be taken," Dhore had said.

The court said "The witness (Dr Dhore) said he did not find any external injury marks or any self-defence evidence. But vaginal opening was large. White discharge was found in the vaginal cavity and no injury was found near her private parts. Both the deceased have similar injury on the neck and it has been done by a person who is surgically trained."

The Judge also said the injury was V-shaped which can be inflicted by the golf stick, as suggested by the CBI in the closure report.

The Court also observed that there was circumstantial evidence pointing out that Aarushi`s private parts were cleaned.

It came to the conclusion after the investigation of all the above-mentioned witnesses and evidence registered on the case diary, "prima facie it appears when the incident took place there were four people present in the house– Dr Rajesh Talwar, Dr Nupur Talwar, Aarushi and Hemraj, out of which, two, Aarushi and Hemraj were found dead."

The court said there was no evidence in the case diary which suggested that some person had tried to enter forcefully or any evidence was found to implicate the servants in the double murder.

"During the night of the incident, there is evidence in the case diary which said that the the internet was switched on or off by some person. Aarushi`s private parts were cleaned and deceased Hemraj was dragged in an injured condition from Dr Rajesh Talwars flat to the roof and then the gate of the roof was locked.

The Court said "It is not possible that an outsider could come and use the internet when the Talwar couple is at home nor is it possible that the body of deceased Hemraj is taken to the roof and then the roof is locked.

"The evidence registered in the case diary also says that blood-soiled feet marks were found in Aarushi`s room but they are not found outside her room. If the murderer goes out after committing the murder then the blood-soiled feet marks would not be restricted only to Aarushi`s room and it is not possible for an outsider to consume liquor in the house when the Talwar couple is there.

"Also, it is not possible that the murderer tries to take the body to the roof as the accused would always like to run away so that no one catches him."

The Court said CBI is a premier investigating agency of the country on which the country has "unshakable trust".

"When all other agencies fail, investigation of such a case is entrusted to the CBI. In such a condition, it is expected from the CBI that imbibing high ideals they submit such an evidence to the court which is logical and lawfully correct but in this case CBI did not do it, which is highly disappointing."

The Judge said evidence from the case diary suggests that a "link is getting constructed and the link prime facie indicates that Dr Rajesh Talwar and Dr Nupur Talwar are accused."

Other important evidence that the Court relied on include a statement given by a painter who was asked by Rajesh to paint the wooden wall separating his and Aarushi`s room after the murder.

"Dr Rajesh Talwar asked for the painting of the wooden wall separating his and Aarushi`s room which indicates that he was trying to fiddle with the evidence and other witnesses in the case diary have corroborated it prima facie.

"Hence, in the light of above evidence, the conclusion (closure report) given by investigators is qualified to be rejected and prima facie cognisance should be taken against Rajesh Talwar and Nupur for the murder of Aarushi and Hemraj and fiddling with the evidence," the Special Judicial Magistgrate observed.

You might also like

Comments are closed.