The Noida dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar have been sentenced to life imprisonment by a special CBI court for murdering in 2008 their 14-year old daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj. Although the circumstantial evidence — that they were the only occupants of the house at the relevant time and that there was no sign of a forced entry — seems to justify the sentence, there are many missing links. The Aarushi case has witnessed many twists and turns from the beginning.
The verdict has been accompanied by accusations of shoddy investigation, incompetence and media activism. Over the past five years, with fewer facts and more opinions emerging, the case came in for intense trial by the media.
Md Adil Ashraf,
The Aarushi case verdict should be an eye-opener to the common man, the criminal justice system and the police. Initially, servants and then parents were suspected. They were then let free, and finally the focus turned to Rajesh and Nupur Talwar. After five years, they have been sentenced on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Whether or not the couple murdered their only child, one thing is certain. Parents did not have much time to devote to their child who spent more time alone in the house.
Since the crime took place inside the house and there was no forced entry, it is difficult to believe that the murder was committed without the knowledge of the Talwars. The motive for the double murder seems to be betrayal of trust by the domestic help.
It is hard to believe that in a free and educated society like the one the Talwars belong to, parents do not understand the natural progression of sexual curiosities of their teenaged children. If a sexual liaison between Aarushi and Hemraj was indeed the true motive behind the murders, we need to seriously think about the immature ways in which parents deal with their teenage kids.
Did the dentist parents slit the throats of the two victims simultaneously? It is surprising that the robust Hemraj did not react or resist when Rajesh Talwar was killing his daughter. Was one of the victims watching while the other was being killed, waiting to be killed next? Did the prosecution come to the conclusion first and then build the case?
Arulur N. Balasubramanian,