Aarushi Talwar Murder Case: Revisiting The Evidences

Posted on February 14, 2011 in Specials

By Nitum Jain:

The Aarushi Talwar case remains unsolved even after almost three years worth of investigation, conducted first by the Noida police and then the CBI. 29th December 2010 saw the filing of a closure report by the CBI, citing Rajesh Talwar, the father, as the prime suspect in this double homicide.

The case has seen many revelations and much drama. Just recently, Rajesh Talwar was attacked with a cleaver held by Utsav Sharma just outside the special CBI court in Ghaziabad and sustained some serious injuries.

The latest in this thread is the special CBI court’s order to put The Talwars on trial, accusing them for the double murder and tampering of evidence. Special judicial magistrate, Preeti Singh, relied on the surmounting circumstantial evidence against the couple, statements of the witnesses and entries in the case diary.

The disappointment at the CBI’s handling of the case was very much evident; keeping in mind the visible evidence, it was expected from the investigator to file a chargesheet against Dr. Rajesh and Nupur Talwar.

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 Court said.

The Evidentiary Support taken into consideration by the Court.

  1. The Internet Router: The internet router in Aarushi’s room was of the kind that had to be manually put on and off. According to records, it had been turned on sometime before midnight and turned off after 3 a.m. on the night of the murders. The Talwars, however, stated that the router often malfunctioned and thus cannot be held as reliable evidence. They also stated that it could have been because of a power cut that occurred that night. However, the CBI found that there was no power-cut anywhere that night, throughout Noida.
  2. The Witness: Dr. Sunil Kumar Dhore emerged as a crucial witness in the case; he conducted the post-mortern of the teenager. He gave a statement narrating an incident where Dinesh Talwar, brother of Rajesh, handed him a mobile phone with Dr Dogra (AIIMS specialist on post mortems) on the line through whom Dhore was asked to conceal any information about whether Aarushi Talwar had been sexually assaulted prior to the murder. Dinesh Talwar has denied this, stating that his cell phone records can be checked to verify that no such call was made by him.
  3. The Post-Mortem Report: The report by Dr. Dhore contained no self-defence evidence or external injuries of any kind. What it did show was the enlargement of the vaginal cavity and the white discharge found within; earlier the vaginal swaps had been reported missing from the evidence. This does provide a very suspicious turn to the investigation and also can be source to much conjecture about motives. Both, Aarushi and Hemraj fell to the same weapon, their necks slit with trained surgical precision (hence fortifying the speculation against the Talwars, both dentists). The report also cited similar V-shaped wounds on the heads of both victims which seem to have been inflicted by a golf stick, as suggested in the CBI closure report.
  4. The Conjecture: Prima facie, there were only four people present in the house when the murders occurred- Dr Rajesh Talwar, Dr Nupur Talwar, Aarushi and Hemraj, the latter two were the victims. Its simple math thereon. The court found no evidence in the case diary which suggested forced entry in the premises and neither was there any evidence to implicate the servants of the household. Also, Hemraj was dragged in an injured condition from the flat to the terrace and then the gate of the terrace was locked from inside. How did both the Talwars slept through all that – poses a big question on their supposed ‘innocence’.
  5. The Blood Stains: Blood-stained footprints were found on the floor of Aarushi’s room but none of them were found anywhere outside. For an outsider to come and go the footprints should have marked the floor from her room and till the exit via the drawing room to the main gate that has access to the entire house.
  6. The Whiskey: Blood traces belonging to both victims was found on a whiskey bottle in the house. The CBI wasn’t able to derive consolidated evidence from it (finger prints etc). One may wonder and one may ask; what killer would stay to have a drink when escape must be foremost in his /her mind?
  7. The Painter: The court also relied on the statement made by a painter who was asked by Dr Talwar to repaint the wooden wall that separated his and his daughter’s room soon after the tragedy. He has thus been accused for fiddling with the evidence.
  8. The Key: Aarushi’s room was always locked by her mother at night due to the 24- hour presence of male domestic help in the house. The key was always kept with Dr Nupur Talwar; however, after the murder it was found in the hall. The Talwars have an answer to that too, they say that she must have inadvertently left the key in the hall and it was used by the killer to get into her daughter’s room and then the killer must have returned them to the hall.

All these evidences points at thr very obvious. But the law is not so fast to jump to conclusions, and rightly so. However much the circumstantial evidence may be, the Talwars won’t serve time without the presence of firm evidential support, which is fair enough. The case has been in the limelight since the very day of the homicide and we have to just wait for it to unravel as the trial progresses.