Supreme Court raps Talwars for adopting delaying tactics, rejects plea

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the plea of doctor couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, who are accused of murdering their daughter Aarushi and their domestic help Hemraj, for a direction to supply copies of the reports of scientific tests conducted on them and three other domestic helps.

A bench of Justices B.S. Chauhan and S.A. Bobde dismissed their special leave petition against a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which, too, had rejected their plea.

Writing the judgment, Justice Bobde said: “The present stage of the trial is that the evidence of the prosecution is closed and the statements of the accused are being recorded under Section 313 Cr. PC. The application in question under Section 311 for examining seven other leftover witnesses was moved at this stage.”

The Bench, citing various applications filed by the petitioners at every stage, said that “it is evident that petitioners have been adopting dilatory tactics on every moment.”

Referring to the present appeal, the Bench observed: “There is no reason why the petitioners ought to have waited from 19.7.2013 to 17.9.2013 to approach this Court and allowed the trial to proceed even further. We make this observation in the background of the observation of the High Court that even the initial applications were made at a stage where the prosecution evidence had been concluded and the defence had entered and almost concluded its evidence. In fact, the petitioners had, without raising any objection that the reports and documents allegedly proved by the witnesses have not been supplied to them or made part of the Court record, participated in the examination and cross-examination of two witnesses.”

Dismissing the appeal, the Bench said: “We might note that criminal courts are not obliged to accede to the request made by any party to entertain and allow application for additional evidence and in fact, are bound in terms of Section 233 (3) Cr. PC. to refuse such request if it appears that they are made in order to vex the proceedings or delay the same. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Trial Judge who has been conducting the trial is likely to retire very soon.”