26 Reasons for Sentencing Talwars in Aarushi Case

11/26/13 26 reasons for sentencing Talwars in Aarushi case

newindianexpress.com/nation/26-reasons-for-sentencing-Talwars-in-Aarushi-case/2013/11/26/article1912699.ece?service=print 1/3

26 reasons for sentencing Talwars in Aarushicase

Author: PTI

Published Date: Nov 26, 2013 8:21 PMLast Updated: Nov 26, 2013 9:45 PM

Dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar were today sentenced to life term by a CBIcourt after they were convicted of killing their daughter Aarushi and domestic helpHemraj.

Of course there is no direct evidence but CBI has placed a "clinching wealth of circumstances" from which theguilt of Rajesh Talwar and his wife Nupur has been made out for murdering their daughter Aarushi anddomestic help Hemraj, judge Shyam Lal said while outlining 26 reasons for sentencing the couple to rigorouslife imprisonment.

"From the evidence as tendered by the prosecution in form of oral and documentary evidence this courtreaches to the irresistible and impeccable conclusion that only the accused persons are responsible forcommitting this ghastly crime as the following circumstances unerringly point towards the hypothesis of guilt ofthe accused," the 210-page order said. while pointing out 26 circumstances leading to the conviction.

1. That irrefragably on the fateful night of May 15 and 16, 2008 both the accused were last seen with both thedeceased in Flat No. L-32, Jalvayu Vihar at about 9.30 P.M. by Umesh Sharma, the driver of Rajesh Talwar;

2. That on the morning of May 16, 2008 at about 6.00 A.M. Aarushi was found murdered in her bed-room whichwas adjacent to the bedroom of the accused and there was only partition wall between two bed-rooms;

3. That the dead body of the servant Hemraj was found lying in the 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;

4. That there is a close proximity between the point of time when both the accused and the deceased personswere last seen together alive and the deceased were murdered in the intervening night of May 15 and 16, 2008and as such the time is so small that possibility of any other person(s) other than the accused being theauthors of the crime becomes impossible;



5. That the door of Aarushi's bed-room was fitted with automatic click-shut lock. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, thethen S.P. (City), NOIDA has deposed that when he talked to Rajesh Talwar on May 16, 2008 in the morning, hehad told him that in the preceding night at about 11.30 P.M. he had gone to sleep with the key after locking thedoor of Aarushi's bed-room from outside. Both the accused have admitted that door of Aarushi's bed-room washaving automatic-clickshut lock like that of a hotel, which could not be opened from outside without key butcould be opened from inside without key. No explanation has been offered by the accused as to how the lockof Aarushis room was opened and by whom.

6. That the internet remained active in the night of the gory incident suggesting that at least one of the accusedremained awake;

7. That there is nothing to show that an outsider(s) came inside the house in the said night after 9.30 PM.;

8. That there was no disruption in the supply of electricity in that night;

9. That no person was seen loitering near the flats in suspicious circumstances during that night;

10. That there is no evidence of forcible entry of any outsider(s) in the flat in the night of occurrence;

11. That there is no evidence of any larcenous act in the flat;

12. That in the morning of May 16, 2008 when the maid came to the flat for the purpose of cleaning andmopping, a false pretext was made by Nupur Talwar that door might have been locked from outside by theservant Hemraj although it was not locked or latched from outside;

13. That the house maid Bharti Mandal has nowhere stated that when she came inside the flat both theaccused were found weeping;

14. That from the testimony of Bharti Mandal it is manifestly clear that when she reached the flat and talked toNupur Talwar then at that time she had not complained about the murder of her daughter and rather she toldthe maid deliberately that Hemraj might have gone to fetch milk from Mother dairy after locking the wooden doorfrom outside. This lack of spontaneity is relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act;

15. That the clothes of both the accused were not found soaked with blood. It is highly unnatural that parents ofdeceased Aarushi will not cling to and hug her on seeing her murdered;

16. That no outsider(s) will dare to take Hemraj to the terrace in severely injured condition and thereafter searchout a lock to be placed in the door of the terrace;

17. That it is not possible that an outsider(s) after committing the murders will muster courage to take Scotchwhisky knowing that the parents of the deceased Aarushi are in the nearby room and his top priority will be torun away from the crime scene immediately.

18. That no outsider(s) will bother to take the body of Hemraj to the terrace. Moreover, a single person cannottake the body to the terrace;

19. That the door of the terrace was never locked prior to the occurrence but it was found locked in the morningof May 16, 2008 and the accused did not give the key of the lock to the police despite being asked to give thesame;

20. That the accused have taken plea in the statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. that about 8-10 days beforethe occurrence painting of cluster had started and the navvies used to take water from water tank placed on theterrace of the flat and then Hemraj had started locking the door of the terrace and the key of that lock remainedwith him. If it was so then it was not easily possible for an outsider to find out the key of the lock of terrace door;

21. That if an outsider(s) may have committed the crime in question after locking the door of terrace and hadgone out of the flat then the outer most mesh door or middle mesh door must have been found latched fromoutside;

22. That the motive of commission of the crime has been established;

23. That it is not possible that after commission of the crime an outsider(s) will dress-up the crime scene;

24. That golf-club no.5 was thrown in the loft after commission of the crime and the same was produced aftermany months by the accused Rajesh Talwar;

25. 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;

26. That the accused Rajesh Talwar was a member of the Golf-Club NOIDA and golfclubs were produced byhim before the CBI and scalpel is used by the dentists and both the accused are dentists by profession;

"The manner in which the murders were committed is not the handiwork of single accused and rather themurders were committed and evidence destroyed by both the accused in furtherance of their common intentionwhich is apparent from the facts and circumstances" mentioned, the judge said.

Timeline of Aarushi-Hemraj murder caseTalwar couple inconsolable, refuse dinner: jail officialsWatch Gallery

Also read:

Life term for Talwar couple for killing Aarushi, Hemraj

Lawyers exchange blows in bid to brief media on Aarushi verdict

Aarushi case: Talwars held guilty, sentencing today

CBI seeks death penalty for Talwars for killing Aarushi, Hemraj

Copyright 2012 The New Indian Express. All rights reserved.

26 Reasons for Sentencing Talwars in Aarushi Case

Documents

Transcript of 26 Reasons for Sentencing Talwars in Aarushi Case