The proceedings in the Aarushi-Hemraj double murder case entered the last lap on Thursday with the defence counsel commencing its final arguments.
Rajesh and Nupur Talwar are standing trial for the murder of their 14-year-old daughter Aarushi and domestic aide Hemraj on the night of May 15-16,2008.
The defence outlined seven themes that their final arguments would revolve around,with advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir focusing on disproving the grave and sudden provocation theory put forth by the prosecution.
Addressing the court of ASJ Shyam Lal,Mir said,The CBI theory is that Hemraj and Aarushi were in the same room when Rajesh came in and,under grave and sudden provocation,attacked them. This theory was built based on three of the 39 prosecution witnesses Dr M S Dahiya (CFSL scientist),Dr Sunil Dohre (conducted autopsy on Aarushis body) and Dr Naresh Raj (conducted autopsy on Hemrajs body).
Arguments primarily revolved around Dahiyas report titled crime scene re-enactment and analysis report.
Mir said,Dahiya based Hemrajs presence in Aarushis room on information given to him by the investigating authority,by his own admission. The CBI contradicts its stand,as in its closure report,CBI investigating officer A G L Kaul says that there was no evidence to show that Hemraj was in Aarushis room. While Dahiya said there were two blood spatters in Aarushis room,only Aarushis blood was found. How did Dahiya know that Hemraj was in her room?
Mir argued that it was as if Dahiya had made up his mind to send Rajesh and Nupur Talwar to the gallows.
Dahiya relied upon the statements under Section 161 of CrPC. However,in law these cannot be regarded as substantive evidence. When the CBI found out that Hemrajs blood was not found in Aarushis room,why did Kaul not notify Dr Dahiya of this? And why did the doctor not ask for any scientific basis to assert that Hemraj was in the same room as Aarushi, Mir asked.
He argued that the grave and sudden provocation theory would stand only if the prosecution could prove that Hemraj was in Aarushis room.
While the defence counsel said the role of Dr Sunil Dohre and Dr Naresh Raj would be dealt with extensively on Friday,Mir told the court that the role of the medical officers in this case was no less than medical blasphemy.
In his sixth statement,Dr Sunil Dohre says Aarushis private parts were enlarged signifying cleaning of the area after her death. However,in the five previous statements,he did not mention this even once. In his post-mortem report,Dr Dohre wrote no abnormality detected, he said.