Aarushi case dr rajesh & nupur are innocent
Embed Size (px)
Much hyped case of Aarushi- Hemraj murder has drawn enormous attention in past 5 years partly because how it was portrayed in media and partly because half baked information is in public domain. Here is an attempt to share some information, which is largely rebuttle of charges which trial court judge used to base his judgement of life imprisonment to the parents of Aarushi.
Transcript of Aarushi case dr rajesh & nupur are innocent
- 26 Reasons Why parents are innocent.. Aarushi Hemraj murder case 16th May 2008 till date
- Background On the fateful night of 16th May 2008 Aarushi Talwar, the only child of Drs. Rajesh & Nupur Talwar was murdered and two days later their servant Hemrajs dead body was found on the terrace. Since that time the case has taken many twists and turns. UP Police did their investigation in a completely unprofessional manner, after which the case was handed over to CBI. Two CBI teams investigated the case with contrasting theories and contradictory methods. A closure report was filed, despite the fact that there was scientific as well as physical evidence against the servants and the scientific reports did not indicate the involvement of parents. Citing selfcontradictory reports and findings, when the Dr couple protested against closure, the court using its wisdom, summoned both Rajesh and Nupur Talwar to face trial.
- Background To the utter dismay of the public & media, the trial court gave a judgment which failed to rationalize its verdict and pronounced life imprisonment to the parents declaring them architect of rarest of the rare cases. Thus, quashed the doctrine of justice Even if 99 convicts escape, not a single innocent should be punished. While convicting Rajesh and Nupur Talwar on 25th November, 2013, the CBI court listed 26 circumstances that led to the finding of guilt. Here are 26 explanations given by the parents that were overlooked by the judge and had they been considered, it would have proved unequivocally that the parents are innocent.
- 01 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.
- 02 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 laminates over it. The CBIs 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.
- 03 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 floor.
- 04 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.
- 05 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 bed-room from outside. Both the accused have admitted that door of Aarushi's bed-room 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.
- 05 FINDING 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 Aarushis 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.
- 06 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.
- 07 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 Hemrajs room. A policeman, the CBI s own witness, testified that Hemrajs 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 Hemrajs 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.
- 08 FINDING That there was no disruption in the supply of electricity in that night. RIGHT: How does this prove anyones guilt?
- 09 FINDING That no person was seen loitering near the flat in suspicious circumstances during that night. This reasoning is flawed because no one saw the Talwar couple drag Hemrajs body to the terrace or the Talwars dispose off blood-stained bed-sheets, 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 Hemrajs 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 doo