Case diary shows prima facie involvement of the parents, says court

Observing that there was an unbreakable chain of circumstances, evident from the case diary, indicating the prima facie involvement of Aarushi's parents in the double murder, the designated court here has described the Central Bureau of Investigation's stand to close the case as extremely disappointing.

Special CBI Magistrate Preeti Singh, in her order making Rajesh and his wife Nupur Talwar accused in the murder case on Wednesday, said the agency should have filed a charge sheet against the couple based on circumstantial evidence.

“In a case where a crime has been committed inside a house, direct evidence cannot be expected. The CBI is the country's premier investigating agency and people have unwavering faith in it. In such circumstances, it is expected of the agency, while adopting high standards, to submit a report that is logical and justifiable on the basis of evidence gathered during the probe,” said the order.

Going by the contents of the case diary, the CBI's submission for closure of the case does not appear logical, it said.

Stating that circumstantial evidence indicated the involvement of the Talwars, the court observed that a witness, Shohrat, claimed that Dr. Talwar had asked him to paint a wooden partition between his and Aarushi's room in the colour of the wall after the murders.

Shohrat had, about a year earlier, polished that portion. He had taken Rs.25,000 for the job. Based on these facts, coupled with several other instances in the case diary, the court observed that Dr. Talwar wanted to tamper with evidence.

The court said investigations revealed that the couple, along with Aarushi and Hemraj, were the only ones present in the house on the fateful night. Some witnesses corroborated that no one was spotted going towards the house and also there was no evidence to suggest a forced entry.

“Prima facie complicity of the servants [Krishna, Raj Kumar and Vijay Mandal] is not made out. On the other hand, the Talwar couple have not complained about any valuables missing from their house and there is no evidence to establish that Aarushi was raped.”

‘No outsider'

Based on these aspects, the court observed that no outsider had entered the house on the night of May 15/16, 2008.

The court also observed that the door to Aarushi's room used to be locked every night and the key used to be with the parents, but they could not explain where they had kept the key on the night in question. Also, Dr. Talwar claimed that Hemraj, who used to smoke bidi on the terrace, had locked the door to the terrace a week before the murders. However, four witnesses — Umesh Sharma, Kalpana Mandal, Vimla Sarkar and Pramod Tanwar — gave a statement to the contrary.

Several other facts recorded by the agency also suggested tampering of evidence, including the cleaning of bloodstains and dressing up of the crime scene.

According to the CBI report, the necks of Aarushi and Hemraj were slit with a small and sharp weapon by a person trained in surgery and they were hit with a blunt weapon resembling a golf club later seized from the couple.

No outsider could have used the Internet, dragged Hemraj's body to the terrace and put a lock on the door. As mentioned in the case diary, there were bloodstained footprints in Aarushi's room, but there were none outside. If the killer came out of that room, his footprints would be in other places as well. Also, it was not possible for an outsider to consume liquor when the Talwar couple were in the house. Perpetrators try to flee immediately after committing the crime so that they do not get caught, the court observed.

In view of the findings, the court charged the Talwars with murder and destruction of evidence, read with common intention.

  • ‘CBI should have filed a charge sheet against the couple'
  • The court charges the Talwars with murder and destruction of evidence