SEARCH

26 counts on which CBI court found Talwars guilty

Devesh K. Pandey
print   ·   T  T  

“They lead to an ‘irresistible and impeccable conclusion’ that only the dentist couple were responsible for the murders”

Rajesh and Nupur Talwar— File photo
Rajesh and Nupur Talwar— File photo

Sentencing Nupur and Rajesh Talwar to life imprisonment for the murder of their daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj, the special CBI court on Tuesday highlighted 26 oral and documentary evidence which lead to an “irresistible and impeccable conclusion” that only the dentist couple were responsible for the murders.

The judgment stated that the following circumstances unerringly pointed towards the hypothesis of guilt of the accused:

On the fateful night, the accused persons were last seen with both the victims at their flat L-32, Jalvayu Vihar (Noida), at 9-30 p.m. on May 15, 2008, by Rajesh Talwar’s driver Umesh Sharma.

Around 6 a.m. on May 16, 2008, Aarushi was found murdered in her bedroom adjacent to that of her parents and there was only a partition wall between the two rooms.

The body of Hemraj was found lying in a pool of blood on the terrace of the house on May 17, 2008, the door of terrace was locked from inside.

There was a close proximity between the points of time when both the accused and the victims were last seen together alive and the victims were murdered in the intervening night of May 15-16, 2008. As such the time is so small that the possibility of any other person(s) other than the accused being the authors of the crime was impossible.

The door to Aarushi’s bedroom had an automatic click-shut lock which could be opened from inside and only using a key from outside. Rajesh Talwar told the police that on May 15 night, he went to sleep around 11-30 p.m. after locking the door of Aarushi’s room from outside and the key were with him. However, the accused had no explanation as to how the lock was opened and by whom.

The internet at the Talwar’s residence remained active on the fateful night suggesting that at least one of the accused remained awake.

There is nothing to show that any outsider(s) came inside the house after 9-30 p.m. on May 15, 2008.

There was no disruption in electricity supply that night.

No person was seen loitering around the flats under suspicious circumstances that night.

There is no evidence of forcible entry of any outsider(s) on the night of occurrence.

There is no evidence of any larcenous act inside the flat.

Crucial testimony by domestic help Bharti Mandal.

In the morning of May 16, 2008, when domestic help Bharti Mandal came to the flat, a false pretext was made by Nupur that the door might have been locked from outside by Hemraj, although it was not locked or latched from outside.

Bharti nowhere stated that when she came inside the flat both the accused were found weeping.

From the testimony of Bharti it was manifestly clear that when she reached the flat and talked to Nupur, at that time the latter had not complained about the murder of her daughter and rather she told the help deliberately that Hemraj might have gone to fetch milk after locking the wooden door from outside. This lack of spontaneity is relevant under Section 8 (conduct) of the Evidence Act.

Clothes of both the accused were not found soaked with blood. It is highly unnatural that parents of Aarushi would not cling to and hug her on discovering that she had been murdered.

No outsider(s) would dare to take Hemraj to the terrace in a severely injured condition and thereafter search for a lock to be placed on the door of the terrace.

It was not possible that an outsider(s) after committing the murders would muster the courage to consume liquor knowing that the parents of Aarushi were in the nearby room and his top priority would be to run away from the crime scene immediately.

No outsider(s) would bother to take the body of Hemraj to the terrace. Moreover, a single person could not take the body to the terrace.

The door of the terrace was never locked prior to the occurrence, but was found locked on May 16, 2008 and the dentist couple did not provide the key to the police despite being asked for the same.

In their statements, the accused took the plea that about 8-10 days before the incident, painting of the building had started and the labourers would fetch water from a tank on the terrace, because of which Hemraj had started locking the door and the key remained with him. If it was so, it was not easily possible for an outsider to find the key.

If any outsider(s) committed the crime after locking the door of terrace and went out of the flat, then the outer most mesh door or middle mesh door must have been found latched from outside.

The motive of commission of the crime has been established.

It is not possible that after commission of crime, any outsider(s) will dress-up the crime scene.

The golf-club No. 5 was thrown into the loft after commission of the crime and the same was produced by Rajesh Talwar after several months.

The pattern of head and neck injuries on both the victims were almost similar in nature and could be caused by golf-club and scalpel, respectively.

Rajesh Talwar was a member of the Golf-Club in Noida and the golf-clubs were produced by him before the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The court said the manner in which the murders were committed was not the handiwork of single accused and rather they were committed and evidence destroyed by both the accused in furtherance of a common intention.


O
P
E
N

close

Recent Article in NEW DELHI

IGNOU launches web-based radio and television channels

Indira Gandhi National Open University has launched web-based radio and television channels for the benefit of its students across the co... »