Aarushi case: Why I think parents are innocent

1
26 ReasonsWhy parents are innocent..

• Aarushi Hemraj murder case

16th May 2008 till date
2
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 self-contradictory
  reports and findings, when the Dr couple
  protested against closure, the court using its
  wisdom, summoned both Rajesh and Nupur Talwar to
  face trial.

3
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.

4
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.
01 FINDING

• WRONG The driver could not have known who came
  to the flat after 930 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.

5
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
bed-rooms.
02 FINDING

• 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.

6
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.
03 FINDING

• 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.

7
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.
04 FINDING

• 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.

8
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 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
9
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.

10
That the internet remained active in the night of
the gory incident suggesting that at least one of
the accused remained awake.
06 FINDING

• 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.

11
That there is nothing to show that an outsider(s)
came inside the house in the said night
after 9.30 P.M.
07 FINDING

• 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.

12
That there was no disruption in the supply of
electricity in that night.
08 FINDING

• RIGHT How does this prove anyones guilt?

13
That no person was seen loitering near the flat
in suspicious circumstances during that night.
09 FINDING

• 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.

14
That there is no evidence of forcible entry of
any outsider(s) in the flat in the night of
occurrence.
10 FINDING

• 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.

15
That there is no evidence of any larcenous act in
the flat
11 FINDING

• 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.

16
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.
12 FINDING

• 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.

17
That the maid Bharti Mandal has nowhere stated
that when she came inside the flat both the
accused were found weeping.
13 FINDING

• 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.

18
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.
14 FINDING

• 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 Hemrajs room and found him not
  there. She assumed, as any one would in these
  circumstances, that he had gone out. She hadnt
  as yet discovered that Aarushi had been murdered,
  so there was no question of considering that
  possibility.

19
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.
15 FINDING

• 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 Aarushis 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 Hemrajs blood on
  them and this alone eliminates them as accused in
  the case.

20
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.
16 FINDING

• 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 Aarushis
  room, or that he was dragged upstairs. Hemrajs
  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.

21
That it is not possible that an outsider(s) after
committing the murders will muster courage to
take Scotch whisky knowing 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.
17 FINDING

• 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 Rajeshs 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.

22
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.
18 FINDING

• WRONG Again this is not based on evidence but
  on ifs and buts, all of which is purely
  conjectural. Hemraj was not dragged to the
  terrace and the CBIs 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.

23
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.
19 FINDING

• 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.

24
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 navies 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
remained with 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.
20 FINDING

• 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.

25
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.
21 FINDING

• This was exactly what was found. The outer grill
  door was never locked. The middle iron grill door
  was latched from the out-side, thereby denying
  the Talwars access to the outside world.

26
That the motive of commission of the crime has
been established.
22 FINDING

• 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 Hemrajs blood was found on
  Aarushis pillow, therefore they were both
  attacked and killed in Aarushis room (by the
  father). The testimony of CBIs own witness,
  forensic scientist B.K. Mahapatra, established
  that Hemrajs blood was not found anywhere in
  Aarushis 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 Aarushis room.

27
That it is not possible that after commission of
the crime an outsider(s) will dress-up the crime
scene. 
23 FINDING

• 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 Aarushis private parts (Nothing
  Abnormal Detected) suddenly remembered a host of
  abnormalities 18 months later. So who is dressing
  up the case?

28
That golf-club No.5 was thrown in the loft after
com mission of the crime and the same was
produced after many months by the accused
Rajesh Talwar.
24 FINDING

• 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.

29
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.
25 FINDING

• 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). Krishnas
  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.

30
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.
26 FINDING

• 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 KRISHNAS ROOM WAS NEVER SENT TO CDFD FOR
  ANALYSIS.

31
EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE IGNORED BY CBI !!

• November 2008 Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and
  Diagnostics (CDFD) Hyderabad
• issues report that Krishna's pillow cover has
  Hemraj's blood.
• December 2010 This fact is missing from the
  Closure Report filed by CBI.
• February 2011 Talwars get access to the report,
  upon being chargesheeted. They immediately
• mention this in Allahabad High Court.
• March 8th, 2011 CBI tells the court the lab made
  a Typographical Error in labelling
• the pillow cover. It provides no documents to
  the court on affidavit to back this assertion.
• March 18th, 2011 The High Court accepts CBI's
  explanation.
• CBI seeks a
  clarification from CDFD.
• March 24th, 2011 An unsigned and unstamped
  document from CDFD is produced
• that says, yes, a 'Typographical Error' has
  occurred.
•  
• The 'TYPO ERROR' document was produced
• 2 years after the error was committed
• 1 month after Talwars mentioned about this
  explosive evidence in court
• 2 weeks after the CBI told the Court that there
  was a Typographical Error
• 1 week after Allahabad High Court judgement had
  accepted the Typo Error
•  

32
EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE IGNORED BY CBI !!

• Explosive evidence available with the CBI in the
  form of a blood stained pillow cover belonging to
  Krishna and recovered from his room, was
  forensically proved to have the blood and DNA of
  the deceased Hemraj.
• When it was brought to their notice, the CBI
  conducted a massive cover up exercise and then
  claimed that the DNA report was based on a
  Typographical Error !
•  
• The one piece of clinching evidence that could
  have determined the fate of this trial was
  overlooked by the CBI and the court.
•  
• Is this not a MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE?

33

• Dont wait for this to happen to your near and
  dear.
• Do your bit.
• PLEASE SHARE THESE FACTS WITH ALL YOUR FRIENDS
  AND FAMILY