The counsel representing Rajesh and Nupur Talwar on Thursday told a Ghaziabad sessions court that the CBI theory that cuts on Aarushis and Hemrajs necks were made by a surgical scalpel may have created a tirade against the accused in the media but have failed the test of law. 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. According to the CBI theory,the cuts on the necks of Aarushi and Hemraj were made by the accused with a surgical scalpel. Defence counsel Tanveer Ahmed Mir argued,There has been no recovery of any scalpel in this case,and there is not a shred of forensic evidence to support the theory. The first time the scalpel was mentioned a year-and-half after the murders was in October 2009. This is a witch hunt as there is only the assumption that if the accused are doctors,the weapon is probably a surgical scalpel. Pointing towards nefariousness of the investigating agencies,Mir said the investigating officer in the case did not even ask the accused to hand over a scalpel if they were ever in possession of one. AGL Kaul told the court that he spoke to Dr Chandra Bhushan Singh,who is a professor of dentistry,on the subject of a dental scalpel causing the injuries found on the necks. However,it is clear that Dr Bhushan was dropped as a prosecution witness as he would have revealed that a dental scalpel is too small to cause the injuries that were present. When Kaul was asked during cross-examination,he admitted that he had not even bought a surgical scalpel from the market before making the accusation. If he could ask Rajesh Talwar for the golf club,why not a scalpel? The prosecution purposely did not produce a scalpel as evidence as they would have been caught out, Mir said. The defence also pointed out that though Dr Dohre and Dr Naresh Raj,who conducted the autopsies on the two victims,claimed that the cuts were made by a surgical weapon,their accounts during cross-examination contradicted this. In their cross-examinations,they said the injuries could have been made by any other sharp weapon. The first time they mentioned that the injuries were made by a surgical scalpel was also after giving several statements to investigating authorities in which they did not mention it at all, Mir said. The defence also highlighted the testimony of defence witness Dr Amulya Chaddha who had told the court that a dental scalpel was not capable of reproducing the cuts on Aarushi and Hemraj in one stroke. Mir said this murder case had brought to light a disturbing trend where forensic analysis was being conducted on the basis of photographs alone. Dr Dahiya completed his report on the basis of 14 photographs,without actually visiting the crime scene. On the basis of this,how can he say whose blood was found,or who committed the murder? Strong strictures should be passed against these forensic scientists for writing such reports on these grounds, he said.
