26 Reasons why Rajesh and Nupur Talwar are Innocent
On 25th November, 2013 Rajesh and Nupur Talwar were convicted by a CBI court of killing their only child and domestic help. It listed 26 circumstances that led to the finding of guilt.
Here are 26 explanations given by the parents that were overlooked by the judge. Had they been considered, it would have proved unequivocably that the parents are innocent.
1 FINDING: That on the fateful night of May 15 and 16, 2008 both the accused were last seen with both the deceased in Flat No. L-32, Jalvayu Vihar at about 9.30 P.M. by Umesh Sharma, the driver of Rajesh Talwar.
WRONG: The driver could not have known who came to the flat after 9:30 pm. The charge fails to take into account the proven circumstance that there were 7, and not 4 people in the house late that night.
2 FINDING: That on the morning of May 16, 2008 at about 6.00 A.M. Aarushi was found murdered in her bedroom which was adjacent to the bedroom of the accused and there was only partition wall between two bedrooms.
WRONG: THERE WAS A BRICK WALL WITH WOODEN LAMINATESOVER IT. The CBI’s own forensic and sound expert team conducted sound
tests in the rooms with both the A/Cs on and found that nothing could be heard in Rajesh and Nupur’s room. This report was proved in trial.
3 FINDING: That the dead body of the servant Hemraj was found lying in a pool of blood on the terrace of flat no. L-32, Jalvayu Vihar on May 17, 2008 and the door of terrace was found locked from inside.
WRONG: The term “inside” is misleading. The terrace door was locked on the side where the stairs went down to the 2nd floor and subsequently to the ground floor. (All the stairs/ terraces are outside the flat and part of the common area of the building). This is exactly the way any killer would lock the door and escape, using the stairs to the ground
4 FINDING: That there is a close proximity between the point of time when both the accused and the deceased persons were last seen together alive and the deceased were murdered in the intervening night of May 15 and 16, 2008 and as such the time is so small that the possibility of any person(s) other than the accused being the authors of the crime becomes impossible.
WRONG: The statement is purely conjectural. The time of deaths, based on the post mortem reports, were after 1 am, and therefore there was enough time for an outsider to kill the two victims.
5 FINDING: That the door of Aarushi’s bed-room was fitted with automatic click-shut lock. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, the then S.P. (City), NOIDA has deposed that when he talked to Rajesh Talwar on May 16, 2008 in the morning, he had told him that in the preceding night at about 11.30 P.M. he had gone to sleep with the key after locking the door of Aarushi’s bedroom from outside. Both the accused have admitted that door of Aarushi’s bedroom was having automatic-click shut lock like that of a hotel, which
could not be opened from outside without key but could be opened from inside without key. No explanation has been offered by the accused as to how the lock of Aarushi’s room was opened and by whom.
WRONG: The statement that no explanation was offered about this circumstance is untrue and false. Nupur Talwar testified that she had used the key to open Aarushi’s room when she had gone to switch on the internet router (a fact that the CBI also concedes to in its Closure Report) and had inadvertently left the key on the keyhole, when she came out of the room. The CBI subjected both the parents to extensive scientific and investigative tests and no deception on lie-detector test or evidence of any involvement in the Brain Mapping Test and Narco Analysis Tests was found.
6 FINDING: That the internet remained active in the night of the gory incident suggesting that at least one of the accused remained awake;
WRONG: A CBI telecom witness testified in court that the pattern of activity on the fateful night was similar to that seen from 6 am in the morning of 16th May to 1 pm that day, a time when the house was overrun with policemen. The CBI had itself discredited this circumstance as “unreliable” in its Closure Report.
7 FINDING: That there is nothing to show that an outsider(s) came inside the house in the said night after 9.30 P.M.
WRONG: Police diaries record the seizure of a bottle of wine, bottles of beer and a bottle of pop (Sprite) from Hemraj’s room. A policeman, the CBI’s own witness, testified that Hemraj’s bed had the imprint of three people sitting on it, that the bathroom looked like it had been used multiple times. Clearly, Hemraj had invited outsiders into his room that fateful night.
Senior journalist Nalini Singh has said that a CBI officer had asked her which songs were being played on her news channel on the night of 15h-16th May 2008. Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal, the three earlier suspects, had in their Narco-analysis Tests confirmed to have assembled in Hemraj’s room that night where they heard certain songs (described by all of them) on Nepali Channel One. Nalini Singh confirmed that her Channel had played those songs at exactly the time, mentioned by the suspects in their Narco Tests. Inexplicably Ms Singh, was not allowed to appear as a witness in the case.
8 FINDING: That there was no disruption in the supply of electricity in that night.
RIGHT: How does this prove anyone’s guilt?
9 FINDING: That no person was seen loitering near the flat in suspicious circumstances during that night.
WRONG:This reasoning is flawed because no one saw the Talwar couple drag Hemraj’s body to the terrace or the Talwars dispose off blood-stained bedsheets, clothes and the weapon in the early hours, as alleged. Also, two of the three servants were not ‘outsiders’ but lived in the complex, a few yards away.
10 FINDING: That there is no evidence of forcible entry of any outsider(s) in the flat in the night of occurrence.
WRONG: The reasoning is flawed as it does not discuss the possibility of a friendly entry. The three people named by the CBI as suspects (Krishna Thadarai, Vijay Mandal and Raj Kumar) were Hemraj’s friends.
11 FINDING: That there is no evidence of any larcenous act in the flat.
WRONG: There can be several motives to murder. The CBI itself conceded that it was not able to discern any credible motive for the murders. Robbery, as is being suggested need not be a motive for the murders.
12 FINDING: That in the morning of May 16, 2008 when the maid came to the flat for the purpose of cleaning and mopping, a false
pretext was made by NupurTalwar that door might have been locked from outside by the servant Hemraj although it was not locked or latched from outside.
WRONG: Bharti, the maid, said that when she entered through the first grill door (WHICH WAS UNLOCKED AND UNLATCHED) by pushing it, she found the SECOND GRILL DOOR, ADJACENT TO THE MAIN WOODEN DOOR OF THE FLAT, LATCHED FROM OUTSIDE. She unlatched it and entered the flat.
13 FINDING: That the maid Bharti Mandal has nowhere stated that when she came inside the flat both the accused were found weeping.
WRONG: Bharti, in her evidence to court, clearly mentions that both parents were crying when she came inside the flat. Other neighbours and visitors have also testified on the same lines.
14 FINDING: That from the testimony of Bharti Mandal it is manifestly clear that when she reached the flat and talked to Nupur
Talwar, then at that time she had not complained about the murder of her daughter and rather she told the maid deliberately that Hemraj might have gone to fetch milk from Mother dairy after locking the wooden door from outside. This lack of spontaneity is relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act.
WRONG: NUPUR TALWAR WAS STILL IN HER ROOM, WAITING FOR HEMRAJ TO OPEN THE DOOR AS HE NORMALLY DID. When Hemraj did not open the door, Nupur, got up on hearing the door bell ring the second time, walked towards the main entrance, glanced into Hemraj’s room and found him not there. She assumed, as any one would in these circumstances, that he had gone out. She hadn’t as yet discovered that Aarushi had been murdered, so there was no question of considering that possibility.
15 FINDING: That the clothes of both the accused were not found soaked with blood. It is highly unnatural that parents of deceased Aarushi will not cling to and hug her on seeing her murdered.
WRONG: What has not been considered was that their clothes were seized by the police one month later, on 16th of June 2008, by which time they could have been washed and dried. Had the police wanted to seize their clothes on the day of the Murder, nothing and no one stopped them. Notwithstanding that, their clothes were tested and Aarushi’s blood was found on them. The fact of the matter is, that they had hugged their dead child and that is why her blood was detected on their clothes although, it was recovered so late. BUT THEIR CLOTHES DID NOT HAVE HEMRAJ’S BLOOD ON THEM AND THIS ALONE ELIMINATES THEM AS ACCUSED IN THE CASE.
16 FINDING: That no outsider(s) will dare to take Hemraj to the terrace in severely injured condition and thereafter search out a lock to be placed in the door of the terrace.
WRONG: Again this is pure conjecture, not evidence. No one is talking of rank outsiders here, but people known to Hemraj. There is no evidence that Hemraj was killed in Aarushi’s room, or that he was dragged upstairs. Hemraj’s postmortem report says that his slippers were found along with the body, suggesting he walked upstairs. The lock and key would have been available to the killer as Hemraj was entrusted with all the keys, a fact established in court records.
17 FINDING: That it is not possible that an outsider(s) after committing the murders will muster courage to take Scotch whisky know-ing that the parents of the deceased Aarushi are in the nearby room and his top priority will be to run away from the crime scene immediately.
WRONG: How is this possibility discounted? Not through evidence. The CBI claimed that Rajesh gulped whisky straight from the Ballantine Scotch bottle, later found on the Dining table. A DNA expert took samples from the neck and mouth of the bottle and found no evidence of Rajesh’s DNA on them. His fingerprints were not found on the bottle either. No witness or police personnel found him smelling of alcohol the next morning.
18 FINDING: That no outsider(s) will bother to take the body of Hemraj to the terrace. Moreover, a single person cannot take the
body to the terrace;
WRONG: Again this is not based on evidence but on if’s and but’s, all of which is purely conjectural. Hemraj was not dragged to the terrace and the CBI’s attempt to prove it, collapsed in Trial. Besides, the CBI had earlier named three young men as suspects who were capable of doing all of this and more.
19 FINDING: That the door of the terrace was never locked, prior to the occurrence but it was found locked in the morning of May
16, 2008 and the accused did not give the key of the lock to the police despite being asked to give the same.
WRONG: It has been proved in trial that one set of the keys of the house and the terrace remained with Hemraj. It has come on record, that the Police was asked to break open the lock on the door, but the police personnel concerned forgot to do so. Ordinarily, Rajesh was unlikely to know where all the keys were. Numb with shock and grief,there was no possibility of his remembering where the terrace keys were. The Police accepts that neither Rajesh nor any one else in the family prevented them from breaking the lock.
20 FINDING: That the accused have taken the plea in the statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. that about 8-10 days before the occurrence painting of cluster had started and the navvies used to take water from water tank placed on the terrace of the flat and then Hemraj had started locking the door of the terrace and the key of that lock re-mained with him. If it was so then it was not easily possible for an out-sider to find out the key of the lock of terrace door;
WRONG: All this proves is, that Hemraj had access to the Terrace door. His friends, too, knew the topography, as they lived in the immediate vicinity, so they could just as easily have committed the crime and locked the terrace door from the bunch of keys that were with Hemraj.
21 FINDING: That if an outsider(s) may have committed the crime in question after locking the door of terrace and had gone out of the flat then the outer most mesh door or middle mesh door must have been found latched from outside;
RIGHT: This was exactly what was found. The outer grill door was never locked. THE MIDDLE IRON GRILL DOOR WAS LATCHED FROM THE OUTSIDE, THEREBY DENYING THE TALWARS ACCESS TO THE OUTSIDE WORLD.
22 FINDING: That the motive of commission of the crime has been established;
WRONG: The motive of the crime was sought to be “established’’ based on a report called – Crime Scene Reconstruction, scribed by one Dr. R S Dahiya. Dr. Dahiya, based his findings, after seeing photographs of the crime scene, and information supplied by the CBI. His Report was based on the hypothesis that Hemraj’s blood was found on Aarushi’s pillow, therefore they were both attacked and killed in Aarushi’s room (by the father). The testimony of CBI’s own witness, forensic scientist B.K. Mahapatra, established that Hemraj’s blood was not found anywhere in Aarushi’s room. Therefore, the cheap and vulgar motive that the CBI subsequently tried to establish, (about the father seeing his daughter and the domestic help in a compromising position) and attacked them, was negated by the fact that no blood of Hemraj was found in Aarushi’s room.
23 FINDING: That it is not possible that after commission of the crime an outsider(s) will dress-up the crime scene.
WRONG: What is the evidence that the crime scene was dressed up? The entire flat was subjected to special UV Light examination, to see whether there were any blood marks or dragging marks inside or outside that could have been cleaned. Nothing was detected. The only “dressing up” that took place were the clandestine shifts in the CBI version. The post-mortem doctor, who found no abnormalities in Aarushi’s private parts (“Nothing Abnormal Detected”) suddenly remembered a host of abnormalities 18 months later. So who is dressing up the case?
24 FINDING: That golf-club No.5 was thrown in the loft after commission of the crime and the same was produced after many
months by the accused Rajesh Talwar;
WRONG: No witness has said that a golf club was thrown into the loft. This statement clearly presumes that golf club No. 5 was the weapon of offence after the CBI said it had less dirt on it than others. A report by the CFSL demonstrates that this golf club was among the dirtier ones and had not been cleaned. Therefore, this circumstance has no merit. The CBI itself conceded that none of the golf clubs had blood or DNA to tie it to the murders. Also, no one asked for the Golf set from the Talwars and when asked, it was produced the very next day. No attempt was made by them to conceal or throw away the set, which is hardly likely if it was the murder weapon.
25 FINDING: That pattern of head and neck injuries of both the accused persons are almost similar in nature and can be caused
by golf-club and scalpel respectively.
WRONG: Presumptive and not based on any evidence. The post-mortem doctors accepted in court that the CBI had never shown them the golf club or any scalpel. Both accepted in court, that they, as part of an eight-member expert committee of forensic experts, set up at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, to review the Post Mortem findings,had confirmed in writing that the most likely weapon of offence used in the crime was a Khukri (that caused both the blunt and the sharp injuries on the victims). Krishna’s blood stained khukri had been recovered. Forensic expert Dr. R.K. Sharma testified that the blunt injuries could not have been caused by a golf club and provided literature to substantiate his statement. He further testified that it was near impossible to cause the sharp edged deep neck injuries with a dental scalpel.
26 FINDING: That the accused Rajesh Talwar was a member of the Golf-Club NOIDA and golf clubs were produced by him before the CBI and scalpel is used by the dentists and both the accused are dentists by profession.
The golf clubs were provided by the Talwars to the CBI. No blood, no DNA or biological fluid was found on them. A dental scalpel was shown to the court, to establish that the CBI charge, that it caused the deep neck injuries, was ludicrous. The defence, through a demonstration in court, showed that no surface of the golf stick could have produced injuries similar to those shown in the post-mortem report. As for the dental scalpel, it is too small in size (0.7cm) to inflict such deep gashes. As a matter of fact, as the AIIMS EXPERT COMMITTEE HAD STATED IN ITS REPORT, THE KHUKRI WAS THE MOST LIKELY WEAPON USED IN THE CRIME. A Khukri, it may be noted has a heavy blunt side, and a sharp knife like side. The same weapon could have caused both
the injuries on both the deceased. THE BLOOD-STAINED KHUKHRI RECOVERED FROM KRISHNA’S ROOM WAS NEVER SENT TO CDFD FOR ANALYSIS.