Given below is the list of inconsistencies/absurdities which i have seen in the (210 paged) verdict of Aarushi-Hemraj murder case pronounced by Justice S.Lal. This is my personal opinion and analysis.
- “Thereafter, she put her hand on the outer grill/mesh door but it did not open. Nupur told her from balcony that the door is not locked and only latched from outside and then Smt. Bharti Mandal came back and opened the latch of the door and came inside the house” – Bharti Mandal never ‘said’ she tried to push the front door. Prosecution counsel asked her a question with a set of events, all were true except for this touching of door piece and she said ‘Yes’ to this sentence. She even said in the court that she was ‘tutored’
- “Chunnilal also took finger prints on bottle of whisky, plate, glasses, room of Hemraj, two bottle of liquor, one bottle of sprite and main door. The room of Hemraj was searched and a bottle containing Sula wine, one empty bottle of Kingfisher beer, a plastic bottle of green colour were recovered and taken into possession” - This confirms that the ‘empty’ beer bottle, wine bottle and sprite bottle was seized from Hemraj’s room which indicates somebody was drinking in that room that night.
- “In the postmortem examination report of Hemraj no finding has been given that liquor contents were found in his stomach” – This proves it was not Hemraj who was drinking wine, beer, whisky or Sprite in his room, but someone else
- “Dr. Rajesh Talwar has admitted at page no. 2 of his written statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. that he and his wife have been brought up in a very liberal atmosphere with modern outlook and at page 3 he has stated that he takes alcohol at parties. However, at page no. 4 of his written statement he has stated that whisky bottle should have been ordinarily in the cabinet. This answer itself suggests that Dr. Rajesh Talwar is fond of liquor and he used to take liquor in his flat as he himself has admitted that whisky bottle must have been in the cabinet and not in the dining table and therefore, there is every possibility that whisky was taken by the accused Dr. Rajesh Talwar. It is also possible that whisky bottle might have been lifted after wearing gloves. It is also possible that Sula wine may have also been taken by the accused when he was extremely and intensely in tension after committing the crime or it was partly made empty to show that Hemraj and his friends had consumed the liquor” – This explanation given for the beer and wine bottles recovered from Hemraj’s room is absurd. If Dr. Rajesh Talwar consumed the full bottle whiskey, he would have appeared drunk at 6 AM. As per the post-mortem of Aarushi, she was killed almost after 4 hours of having food as there was ‘semi digested’ food in her stomach. As per the driver, the talwars had dinner at 10 PM which means Aarushi got killed around 2-3 AM. That leaves just 3 hours for Dr. Talvar to become sober after drinking one full bottle of whiskey, wine and beer!!!!!!!!
- “It is not possible at all that in the midnight around 12.00 O'Clock Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal will come to the room of Hemraj and have liquor drinks. If it was so, four glasses might have been found there but K.K. Gautam has stated before the I.O. that in only two glasses substance like alcohol was seen which has not been confirmed by any other evidence” – Seriously!? It’s proved that Hemraj didn’t drink and hence no question of having 4 glasses present. And how difficult it is to even consider the possibility that they shared a glass!!!!????? How can you reject even the faint possibility of having all 4 present at Hemraj’s room only because the count of the glasses didn’t match the count of attendees?!!!????!!!
- “During investigation S.I. Data Ram Naunaria seized the blood stained pillow (Exhibit-57), bed sheet (Exhibit-55) and pieces of mattress (Exhibit-58) from the room of Aarushi in the presence of witnesses Mohd. Aamir and Digambar Singh and memo was prepared”. “pillow with cover as material Exhibit-176” and “pillow cover of purple colour as material Exhibit- 215” are the 2 other confusing items in the exhibit list. “P.W.-25, S.P.R. Prasad -Senior Technical Examiner, C.D.F.D, has proved chit of Exhibit 176 as material Exhibit-208.” “It is to be noted that no DNA was found in the pillow-cover of Krishna by C.F.S.L., New Delhi and C.D.F.D., Hyderabad and both have found DNA of Hemraj in the pillow-cover of Hemraj” – I know this is TMI, Let me make it simple for you. There are 3 exhibits related to pillows!!
1.
Exhibit 57 –
Blood stained pillow from Aarushi’s room
2.
Exhibit 176 –
Pillow with cover from Hemraj’s room
3.
Exhibit 215 –
Pillow cover from Krishna’s room
- “P.W.-6 Dr. B.K. Mohapatra has mentioned in his report Exhibit-ka-6 that Exhibit-21 was one pillow with printed multi coloured pillow-cover having few faint brown stains. In Exhibit-kha-45 at page 33 it has been written that one blood stained pillow with pillow-cover was recovered from the room of Ms. Aarushi” “Dr. Mohapatra has mentioned in his report Exhibit-ka-6 at para no. 8.12 IV that partial DNA profiles generated from the source of Exhibits-4(blood scrappings), 6-b (glass bottle), 9 (blood scrappings) and 21 (pillow) are consistent with the DNA profiles generated from the source of Exhibit-11 (blood stained threads) and Exhibit-24 (piece of wall having impression of palm print) at the amplified loci” “and thus it becomes abundantly clear that Hemraj's DNA has been found on the pillow with cover which was recovered from the room of Ms. Aarushi as per letter dated 04.06.2008 Exhibit-kha-45 of S.P. (C.B.I.)“ - This is the portion where the judge concludes that the DNA of Hemraj was found on the pillow with cover recovered from Aarushi’s room. Now let’s check the ‘Crl. Revision No.1127 of 2011’ which is the judgement of Allahabad high court on 18/03/2011. It clearly mentions the CBI counsel giving this argument – “Sri Jafri vehemently denied that there was Hemraj's DNA on the pillow cover recovered from Krishna's house. In fact pillow with pillow cover blue and white coloured belonging to deceased Hemraj was numbered as Exhibit-21 and the pillow cover recovered from Krishna's house was numbered as Exhibit-26, in the report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL)”. Mohapatra is a senior CFSL biologist and hence proved that the Exhibit-21 that he is talking about in the above point is actually the pillow and cover recovered from Hemraj’s room itself.
- “The statements of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. that they went to sleep at about 11.30 P.M. on 15.05.2008 are found to be false. P.W.-17 Deepak Kanda has clearly deposed that user ID DSL01205316388 is registered in the name of Nupur and he had supplied the logs of above mentioned broad band from 01.05.2008 to 16.05.2008 through e-mail to Mr. Neelabh Kishore S.P., C.B.I., Dehradun. He has further stated that as per electronic record internet activity started on the said DSL ID on 15.05.2008 at 23:00:50 hours and it lasted up to 02:04:30 hours on 16.05.2008 and thereafter again it started on 16.05.2008 at 02:04:35 hours and it continued up to 03:02:16 hours and again it started at 03:28:36 hours and lasted 03:34:07 hours and then it again started at 03:41:01 hours and remained active up to 03:43:32 hours and then started at 06:01:51 hours and stopped at 06:04:55 hours” – On the night of 16/05, Dr. Rajesh surfed some stock market and dentistry websites, and also sent an e-mail. He visited an e-mail site at 11:41:53 pm, this is time when the desktop and the laptop show the last internet usage. So the first session was indeed by Dr.Rajesh. But the sessions from 02:04:35 - 03:02:16 consumed only 46KB, session from 03:28:36 - 03:34:07 consumed none, session from 03:41:01 - 03:43:32 consumed none and finally session from 06:01:51 - 06:04:55 consumed 6KB. This clearly suggests that Talwars were not ‘browsing’ or active on internet and the router was just faulty.
- “Naunaria asked Dr. Rajesh Talwar to give the keys of lock of the door of the terrace to him but Dr. Rajesh Talwar told him that he was not having the keys and he should not waste his time in breaking open the lock, else Hemraj will manage to flee away”. “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 his house 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 possible for an outsider(s) to rummage out the key and thereafter, lock the door of the terrace from inside when the dead body of Hemraj was lying in the terrace. If it was so then it was not easily possible for an outsider to find out the key of the lock of terrace door” – Sure, outsiders cannot, but Hemraj himself or his friends could have easily opened the terrace and after killing Hemraj can lock the same and just destroy the keys. On what basis is this hypothesis not even considered?
- Defence counsel presented the possibility of having an alternate hypothesis including Krishna, RajKumar and Vijay Mandal based on the tests and evidences, this is what the judge has concluded. “I do not find any substance in the aforesaid submissions. The purpose of investigation is to find out the real culprits and in that process even suspected persons are arrested by the investigating agencies for interrogation but when their culpability and complicity in the commission of the offence is not established, then they are let off and therefore, if Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal were arrested by C.B.I. during the course of investigation but no prima-facie evidence surfaced against them then they were rightly not proceeded against. Recovery of kukri was not made on the basis of pointing out by the accused Krishna. Even this kukri was not recovered from his room on the basis of his disclosure statement” “This witness has wrongly deposed that on the basis of disclosure statement made by Krishna kukri was recovered from his room because in Exhibitka-92 it has nowhere been written that on the basis of disclosure statement recovery of kukri was made on 14.06.2008” – The argument here is that the kukri was not recovered based on Krishna’s disclosure. Let’s go through the turn of events as it’s clearly mentioned in the same judgement. “11.06.2008 granting permission to C.B.I. to conduct Lie Detector Test, Brain Mapping Test and Narco Analyses Test at F.S.L. Banglore and the aforesaid tests indicated that Krishna had revealed crucial information leading to the double murders. on 14.06.2008 a kukri alongwith sheath and purple colour pillow-cover were recovered from his room”. So 11th they got permission to do Narco, 12th he was administered polygraph test and Narco Analysis test at the Bowring Hospital, Bangalore, the video of which is leaked now in which Krishna talks about the Kukri, On 14th Krishna’s house was raided and the kukri was obtained…!! Isn’t it obvious that the disclosure of Krishna led to the raid and recovery of the weapon
- “On examination of golf sticks, it was found that two golf sticks were cleaner than others. These golf sticks were got identified by Umesh Sharma, the driver of Dr. Rajesh Talwar, who stated that said two golf sticks were kept by him in the room of Hemraj”… “In the cross-examination he has stated that in the Exhibit-ka-27 human blood was not found and blood of common animals like cow, sheep, goat, cock, dog and Buffalo was also not found. This evidence proves that kukri was not used for homicide” – The first argument is about how the judge is convinced that the golf stick can be the murder weapon. One of the sticks seemed cleaner than the others and the driver had put 2 of them in Hemraj’s room. The second argument is the explanation of how he got convinced that kukri was not the murder weapon, because it was clean and had no evidence of bood! Wasn’t it the same case with the golf stick????
- “On perusal of photographs paper no. 560-ka-/31, 560- ka/37and 560-ka/39 which were taken from the digital camera (which was given to Ms. Aarushi as birth day gift) in the evening of 15.05.2008 it will reveal that toys, pillow have also been shown in those photographs which were taken in the evening and and Dr. Nupur Talwar was also wearing the same gown which she was found wearing in the morning. It is also possible that before going to sleep Dr. Nupur Talwar might have changed her gown which she was wearing at the time of taking pix from digital camera. As stated herein before, being mother of the child it is not possible that on seeing her child dead she would not have hugged her. During hugging certainly, the gown of Dr. Nupur Talwar must have also been blood stained but no blood was found, which clearly shows that she had changed her gown or other night-garment, which she was wearing in the night” – Now this argument is the weirdest. Before going to sleep on that fateful night, Aarushi had taken pictures of the full family in her new camera. In those pictures, Nupur is seen wearing the same gown as the one she was found wearing in the morning. Isn’t this a clear evidence in favor of the Talwars? But the same has been twisted to depict that Nupur had no love for her daughter because she didn’t hug her daughter when she found her dead in ghastly way!!!!! And how can you use this argument to prove that she had changed her gown? Am I missing something here!??
- "Presence of white discharge in the vaginal cavity of Ms. Aarushi denotes that she was engaged in sexual intercourse, albeit, no spermatozoa was found in the vaginal swab" – I don’t want to comment on this conclusion but as a girl, I can vouch for the fact that this is not the conclusion that should be drawn from this
I sincerely hope justice is done in this case..... As soon as possible.......
JJC
