11/26/13 26 reasons for sentencing Talwars in Aarushi case
newindianexpress.com/nation/26-reasons-for-sentencing-Talwars-in-Aarushi-case/2013/11/26/article1912699.ece?service=print
1/3
26 reasons for sentencing Talwars in Aarushicase
Author: PTI
Published Date: Nov 26, 2013 8:21 PMLast Updated: Nov 26, 2013
9:45 PM
Dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar were today sentenced to
life term by a CBIcourt after they were convicted of killing their
daughter Aarushi and domestic helpHemraj.
Of course there is no direct evidence but CBI has placed a
"clinching wealth of circumstances" from which theguilt of Rajesh
Talwar and his wife Nupur has been made out for murdering their
daughter Aarushi anddomestic help Hemraj, judge Shyam Lal said
while outlining 26 reasons for sentencing the couple to
rigorouslife imprisonment.
"From the evidence as tendered by the prosecution in form of
oral and documentary evidence this courtreaches to the irresistible
and impeccable conclusion that only the accused persons are
responsible forcommitting this ghastly crime as the following
circumstances unerringly point towards the hypothesis of guilt
ofthe accused," the 210-page order said. while pointing out 26
circumstances leading to the conviction.
1. That irrefragably on the fateful night of May 15 and 16, 2008
both the accused were last seen with both thedeceased in Flat No.
L-32, Jalvayu Vihar at about 9.30 P.M. by Umesh Sharma, the driver
of Rajesh Talwar;
2. That on the morning of May 16, 2008 at about 6.00 A.M.
Aarushi was found murdered in her bed-room whichwas adjacent to the
bedroom of the accused and there was only partition wall between
two bed-rooms;
3. That the dead body of the servant Hemraj was found lying in
the 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;
4. That there is a close proximity between the point of time
when both the accused and the deceased personswere last seen
together alive and the deceased were murdered in the intervening
night of May 15 and 16, 2008and as such the time is so small that
possibility of any other person(s) other than the accused being
theauthors of the crime becomes impossible;
11/26/13 26 reasons for sentencing Talwars in Aarushi case
newindianexpress.com/nation/26-reasons-for-sentencing-Talwars-in-Aarushi-case/2013/11/26/article1912699.ece?service=print
2/3
5. That the door of Aarushi's bed-room was fitted with automatic
click-shut lock. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, thethen S.P. (City), NOIDA
has deposed that when he talked to Rajesh Talwar on May 16, 2008 in
the morning, hehad told him that in the preceding night at about
11.30 P.M. he had gone to sleep with the key after locking thedoor
of Aarushi's bed-room from outside. Both the accused have admitted
that door of Aarushi's bed-room washaving automatic-clickshut lock
like that of a hotel, which could not be opened from outside
without key butcould be opened from inside without key. No
explanation has been offered by the accused as to how the lockof
Aarushis room was opened and by whom.
6. That the internet remained active in the night of the gory
incident suggesting that at least one of the accusedremained
awake;
7. That there is nothing to show that an outsider(s) came inside
the house in the said night after 9.30 PM.;
8. That there was no disruption in the supply of electricity in
that night;
9. That no person was seen loitering near the flats in
suspicious circumstances during that night;
10. That there is no evidence of forcible entry of any
outsider(s) in the flat in the night of occurrence;
11. That there is no evidence of any larcenous act in the
flat;
12. That in the morning of May 16, 2008 when the maid came to
the flat for the purpose of cleaning andmopping, a false pretext
was made by Nupur Talwar that door might have been locked from
outside by theservant Hemraj although it was not locked or latched
from outside;
13. That the house maid Bharti Mandal has nowhere stated that
when she came inside the flat both theaccused were found
weeping;
14. That from the testimony of Bharti Mandal it is manifestly
clear that when she reached the flat and talked toNupur Talwar then
at that time she had not complained about the murder of her
daughter and rather she toldthe maid deliberately that Hemraj might
have gone to fetch milk from Mother dairy after locking the wooden
doorfrom outside. This lack of spontaneity is relevant under
section 8 of the Evidence Act;
15. That the clothes of both the accused were not found soaked
with blood. It is highly unnatural that parents ofdeceased Aarushi
will not cling to and hug her on seeing her murdered;
16. That no outsider(s) will dare to take Hemraj to the terrace
in severely injured condition and thereafter searchout a lock to be
placed in the door of the terrace;
17. That it is not possible that an outsider(s) after committing
the murders will muster courage to take Scotchwhisky knowing that
the parents of the deceased Aarushi are in the nearby room and his
top priority will be torun away from the crime scene
immediately.
18. That no outsider(s) will bother to take the body of Hemraj
to the terrace. Moreover, a single person cannottake the body to
the terrace;
19. That the door of the terrace was never locked prior to the
occurrence but it was found locked in the morningof May 16, 2008
and the accused did not give the key of the lock to the police
despite being asked to give thesame;
20. That the accused have taken plea in the statements under
section 313 Cr.P.C. that about 8-10 days beforethe occurrence
painting of cluster had started and the navvies used to take water
from water tank placed on theterrace of the flat and then Hemraj
had started locking the door of the terrace and the key of that
lock remainedwith 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;
21. That if an outsider(s) may have committed the crime in
question after locking the door of terrace and hadgone out of the
flat then the outer most mesh door or middle mesh door must have
been found latched fromoutside;
22. That the motive of commission of the crime has been
established;
23. That it is not possible that after commission of the crime
an outsider(s) will dress-up the crime scene;
24. That golf-club no.5 was thrown in the loft after commission
of the crime and the same was produced aftermany months by the
accused Rajesh Talwar;
25. That pattern of head and neck injuries of both the accused
persons are almost similar in nature and can be
11/26/13 26 reasons for sentencing Talwars in Aarushi case
newindianexpress.com/nation/26-reasons-for-sentencing-Talwars-in-Aarushi-case/2013/11/26/article1912699.ece?service=print
3/3
caused by golf-club and scalpel respectively;
26. That the accused Rajesh Talwar was a member of the Golf-Club
NOIDA and golfclubs were produced byhim 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 themurders were committed
and evidence destroyed by both the accused in furtherance of their
common intentionwhich is apparent from the facts and circumstances"
mentioned, the judge said.
Timeline of Aarushi-Hemraj murder caseTalwar couple
inconsolable, refuse dinner: jail officialsWatch Gallery
Also read:
Life term for Talwar couple for killing Aarushi, Hemraj
Lawyers exchange blows in bid to brief media on Aarushi
verdict
Aarushi case: Talwars held guilty, sentencing today
CBI seeks death penalty for Talwars for killing Aarushi,
Hemraj
Copyright 2012 The New Indian Express. All rights reserved.