26 reasons for guilt

1|That irrefragably on the fateful night of 15/16.05.2008 both the accused were last seen with both the deceased in Flat No. L-32,Jalvayu Vihar at about 9.30 pm,by Umesh Sharma,the driver of Dr Rajesh Talwar;

Bedrooms next to each other

2|That at on the morning of 16.05.2008 at about 6.00 am,Ms Aarushi was found murdered in her bedroom,which was adjacent to the bedroom of the accused,and there was only a partition wall between two bedrooms;

Terrace door locked from inside

3| 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 17.05.2008 and the door of terrace was found locked from inside;

Time crucial

4| 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 on the intervening night of 15/16.05.2008 and as such the time is so small that possibility of any other person(s) other than the accused being the authors of the crime becomes impossible;

Automatic lock on Aarushi’s door

5| That the door of Ms Aarushi’s bedroom was fitted with automatic click-shut lock. P.W.-29 Mahesh Kumar Mishra the then SP (City),NOIDA,has deposed that when he talked to Dr Rajesh Talwar on 16.05.2008 in the morning,he had told him that in the preceding night at about 11.30 pm,he had gone to sleep with the key after locking the door of

Ms Aarushi’s bedroom from outside. Both the accused have admitted that door of Ms 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 Ms Aarushi’s room was opened and by whom;

Internet activity

6| That the internet remained active on the night of the gory incident,suggesting that at least one of the accused remained awake;

No Outsiders

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

No power disruption

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

No one seen loitering

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

No forced entry

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

No theft

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

Main door not locked from

outside

12| That on the morning of 16th May 2008 when the maid came to flat for the purpose of cleaning and mopping,a false pretext was made by Dr Nupur Talwar that door might have been locked from outside by the servant Hemraj although it was not locked or latched from outside;

Accused not weeping

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

Lack of spontaneity

14|That from the testimony of Bharti Mandal it is manifestly clear that when she reached the flat and talked to Dr 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 after locking the wooden door from outside. This lack of spontaneity is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act;

Accused clothes have no

blood stains

15|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;

Outsider won’t dare

16| 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;

Murderer won’t stop for a drink

17| 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. His top priority will be to run away from the crime scene immediately;

Outsider won’t take body to

terrace

18| 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;

Terrace door never locked

19| That the door of the terrace was never locked prior to the occurrence but it was found locked on the morning of 16.05.2008 and the accused did not give the key of the lock to the police despite being asked to give the same;

Terrace door key

20| That the accused have taken plea in the statements under Section 313 CrPC. 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 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;

Main door lock

21| 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 outermost mesh door or middle mesh door must have been found latched from outside;

Motive

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

Crime scene dress-up

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

Golf club No. 5

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

Head and neck injuries

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;

Scalpel used by dentists

26| That the accused Dr 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 manner in which the murders were committed is not the handiwork of single accused and rather the murders were committed and evidence destroyed by both the accused in furtherance of their common intention which is apparent from the facts and circumstances as discussed above.

BRIEFLY NOTED

Now is the time to say omega in this case. To perorate,it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused are the perpetrators of the crime in question. The parents are the best protectors of their own children — that is the order of human nature but there have been freaks in the history of mankind when the father and mother became the killer of their own progeny. They have extirpated their own daughter who had hardly seen 14 summers of her life and the servant without compunction from terrestrial terrain in breach of Commandment ‘Thou shall not kill’ and injunction of Holy Quran — ‘Take not life,which God has made sacred’. They are also found guilty of secreting and obliterating the evidence of the commission of the murders to screen themselves from legal punishment. In addition to that Dr Rajesh Talwar is also found guilty of furnishing false information to the police regarding the murder of his daughter by Hemraj. Dharmo Rakshit Rakshita i.e. if we protect ‘Dharma’,Dharma will protect us. If we protect law,law will protect us.

The prosecution story and its evidence will not receive a jerk and jolt because the erstwhile accused were not chargesheeted or put on trial as the jerk and jolt is not such as to upset and tilt the prosecution version against the accused and create any reasonable doubt in regard to their complicity in the ghastly crime.

A man may tell a lie but the circumstances can never.

…in all human affairs absolute certainty is a myth and as Professor Brett felicitously puts it — “all exactness is a fake”. El Dorado of absolute proof being unattainable the law accepts for it,probability as a working substitute in this work-a-day world.

Circumstance evidence on the other hand,has been compared by Lord Coleridge “like a gossamer thread,light and as unsubstantial as the air itself and may vanish with the merest of touches”.

“India of Vedic Kalpsutras” has stated at page no. 201 that even under the ancient system of administration of Criminal justice,the benefit of doubt was always given to the accused. So Apastamba laid down that Nh Ch Sandehe Dandam Kuriyat (the king should not punish any person in case of doubt).

He has also admitted that Hemraj was average built but he has no knowledge as to whether his willy was turgid.

However,on interventions of super sleuths of CBI closure report was laid by Mr Kaul in the court.

Officer-In-charge of Police Outpost Jalyavu Vihar of Police Station Sector 20 and posse comitatus drawn from other Police Stations also reached

there.

The cynosure of judicial determination is the fluctuating fortunes of the dentist couple Dr Rajesh Talwar and Dr Nupur Talwar,who have been arraigned for committing and secreting as also deracinating the evidence of commission of the murder of their own adolescent daughter-a beaut damsel and sole heiress Ms Aarushi and hapless domestic aide Hemraj,who had migrated to India from neighbouring Nepal to eke out living and attended routinely to the chores of domestic drudgery at the house of their masters.