Why The Court Didn’t Believe Parents Of Aarushi?

Why The Court Didn't Believe Parents Of Aarushi?

Why The Court Didn’t Believe Parents Of Aarushi?

New Delhi: In detailed, point by point, explanation on all the oral and documentary evidence given by prosecution, the judge in the now infamous Aarushi murder case, listed all the enlisted circumstances that persuaded him to issue the guilty verdict that he described as “irresistible and impeccable’. The following are the areas in the defense argument that the judge found problematic, as enumerated in a report appearing India’s national newspaper, The Times Of India.

 On night of May 15/16, 2008, both accused last seen with both deceased in Flat No. L-32, Jalvayu Vihar, around 9.30pm by Umesh Sharma, driver of Dr Rajesh Talwar.

On morning of May 16, around 6am, Aarushi found murdered in her bedroom which was adjacent to bedroom of accused and there was only one partition wall between the two bedrooms.

Body of Hemraj found lying in pool of blood on terrace of flat on May 17 and door of terrace found locked from inside.

Close proximity between the time when both accused and deceased persons last seen together alive and when deceased murdered in the intervening night of May 15/16, 2008. The gap so small that possibility of any other person(s) other than the accused being behind crime impossible.

Door of Aarushi’s bedroom fitted with automatic click-shut lock. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, then SP (City), Noida, said Dr Talwar told him on morning of May 16 that he had gone to sleep with the key at 11.30pm the previous night, after locking the door of Aarushi’s bedroom from outside. Accused admitted door could be opened either with key from outside or without key from inside. How was door opened? No explanation by accused.

Internet active on night of murders, suggesting at least one accused awake.

Nothing to show that outsider(s) came to house that night after

No disruption of power supply that night.

No one seen loitering near the flat in suspicious circumstances that night.

No evidence of forcible entry by any outsider into the flat that night.

No evidence of any larcenous act in the flat On May 16 morning when maid (Bharti Mandal) came to flat for cleaning. Ruse by Nupur Talwar that door might have been locked from outside by Hemraj, though it was not locked or latched from outside.

Bharti nowhere claimed that when she came inside, both accused were weeping.

From Bharti’s testimony, it’s clear that when she reached the flat and spoke to Nupur, she didn’t complain about the murder of her daughter and rather told her deliberately that Hemraj might have gone to fetch milk from Mother Dairy booth after locking the wooden door from outside.

Clothes of both accused not found soaked with blood.

Highly unnatural that parents of deceased Aarushi didn’t cling to her body or hug it.

No outsider would have dared to take Hemraj to terrace in severely injured condition and thereafter search for a lock to be put on the door of terrace.

Not possible that outsider(s) after committing the murders will muster courage to take Scotch whisky knowing that the parents were in a nearby room.Top priority would be to run away.

No outsider will bother to take body of Hemraj to terrace. One person cannot take the body to terrace anyway.

Door of terrace was never locked earlier but found locked on May 16 morning. The accused didn’t give key of lock to police despite being asked for it.

Accused said that about 8-10 days before murders, some painting work had started in complex and labourers used to take water from the tank on terrace. Hence, Hemraj started locking it and keeping the key with himself. If it was so, it won’t be easy for an outsider to find key.

If an outsider(s) had indeed committed the crime and gone out of the flat, the outermost mesh door or middle mesh door must have been found latched from outside.

Motive of commission of crime established.

Not possible for an outsider to dress up crime scene after commission of crime.

Golf club no 5 thrown into the loft after commission of crime and the same produced after many months by Dr Talwar.

Pattern of head and neck injuries of both accused almost similar in nature and can be caused by golf club and scalpel, respectively

Dr Talwar was a member of Golf Club, Noida, and golf clubs were produced by him before CBI. Scalpel is used by dentists and both accused are dentists.

Leave a Comment