Criminal

The State of U.P. Through the C.B.I. Vs. Rajesh Talwar & Another-Sessions Trial

 

Murder Trial

0789b-shibir2

In the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, C.B.I., Ghaziabad
Present: S. LAL, H.J.S.

 

The State of U.P. Through the C.B.I.
Vs.
Rajesh Talwar & Another

R.C. No.1(S)/2008/SCR-III/CBI/NEW DELHI U/ss 302 r/w Section 34, 201 r/w Section 34 & 203 I.P.C.

J U D G M E N T
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.

The mise en scene is Flat No. L-32, Jalvayu Vihar, Sector 25, N.O.I.D.A., a suburb of New Delhi. The Dramatis Personae are Dr. Rajesh Talwar, his wife Dr. Nupur Talwar, the accused of this case, Ms. Aarushi and Hemraj, who were bludgeoned and
thereafter, jugulated to death on the intervening
night of 15/16 May, 2008, Mr. Umesh Sharma and
Mrs. Bharti Mandal.
The parties are ad idem that the case is based
on circumstantial evidence. Skipping expatiation on
prosecution story, a vignette of facts as unveiled is
that on 15.05.2008 at about 09:30 P.M. only Dr.
Rajesh Talwar, Dr. Nupur Talwar, Ms. Aarushi and
Hemraj were last seen in the house by Umesh
Sharma, the driver of Dr. Rajesh Talwar and in the
morning of 16.05.2008 Ms. Aarushi was found dead
in her bedroom, which was adjacent to the bedroom
of accused persons and in between these bedrooms
there was a wooden partition wall. The dead body of
domestic servant Hemraj was found on the terrace
of the house on 17.0.2008 and there is nothing to
suggest that intruder(s) perpetrated this fiendish
and flagitious crime.
Few prefatory facts necessary for unfolding the
sequence of events that followed after the twin
murders are that on 16.05.2008 at about 06:00 A.M.
housemaid Smt. Bharti Mandal arrived as usual at
Flat No. L-32, Jalvayu Vihar and rang the call-bell of
the house but no response came from inside. After
pressing the call-bell second time, she went upstairs
to take mopping bucket. Thereafter, she put
her hand on the outer grill/mesh door but it did not
open. Subsequent to that, she again pressed the
call-bell and then Dr. Nupur Talwar after opening the
wooden door came near the grill door/mesh door
Page 2
situated in the passage and enquired about the
whereabouts of Hemraj to which she replied that she
had no idea of him and then Dr. Nupur Talwar told
her that Hemraj might have gone to fetch milk from
Mother-Dairy after locking the middle grill/mesh
door from outside and she could wait until he
returned. Thereupon, Smt. Bharti Mandal asked Dr.
Nupur Talwar to give her keys so that she may come
inside the house after unlocking the same and then
Dr. Nupur Talwar told her to go to the ground level
and she would be throwing keys to her from
balcony. Accordingly, Smt. Bharti Mandal came
down the stairs and reached the ground level.
Meanwhile, Dr. Nupur Talwar opened the latch of
middle grill/mesh door and 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 and then thereafter, Dr. Nupur Talwar told
Smt. Bharti “Dekho Hemraj Kya karke gaya
hai” (Look here, what has been done by Hemraj).
When maid Smt. Bharti went in Aarushi’s room she
saw that dead body of Aarushi was lying on the bed
and covered with a white bed sheet and her throat
was slit. She got frightened. Thereafter, she went
down the stairs and informed the inmate of the
house situated in first floor. After that, she left the
house to do her job in another house. By that time,
the parents of Dr. Nupur Talwar and Dr. Dinesh
Talwar, the brother of Dr. Rajesh Talwar reached
there. One Mr. Punish Rai Tandon, resident of L-28,
Sector 25, Jalvayu Vihar also reached there at about
06:15 A.M. and after coming back to his house
Page 3

telephoned to the concierge of Jalvayu Vihar to
inform the Police regarding the occurrence.
Accordingly, Mr. Virendra Singh, the security guard
reached there and he was informed by Dr. Rajesh
Talwar that after committing the murder of Aarushi,
the servant Hemraj has fled away. Thereafter, Mr.
Virendra Singh came back to Gate No.01 where
Constable Pawan met him and he was informed
about the incident. Thereupon, Constable Pawan
informed Sub-Inspector, In-charge Police Outpost
Jalvayu Vihar. S.I. Mr. Bachchoo Singh who reached
to the house of the accused at about 07:30 A.M.
where S.P.(City), C.O.(City), Officer-in-charge Police
Station, Sector 20, N.O.I.D.A., Constable Pawan
Kumar and the family members and relatives of the
deceased met him. Meanwhile, Dr. Rajesh Talwar
delated the matter with the Police Station, Sector
20, N.O.I.D.A. stating therein that he lives in L-32,
Jalvayu Vihar, Sector 25, N.O.I.D.A., along with his
wife and daughter Aarushi. The servant Hemraj, who
hails from Nepal used to live in one room of the said
house. His daughter Aarushi, aged about 14 years
was sleeping in her bedroom in the preceding night
but in the morning she was found dead in her bed,
having incised wounds in her throat. The servant has
committed the murder of his daughter who is
missing since night and therefore, the report be
lodged and action taken. On the basis of this report
Case Crime No. 695 of 2008 u/S 302 I.P.C. was
registered against Hemraj and the substance of the
information was recorded in G.D. No. 12 at 07:10
A.M. on 16.05.2008.
Page 4

The investigation of the case was taken up by
S.I. Data Ram Naunaria, the Station House Officer of
Police Station, Sector 20, N.O.I.D.A., who during the
course of investigation proceeded to the scene of
crime, inspected the bedroom of the deceased
Aarushi and recorded the statements of Dr. Rajesh
Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar. Meanwhile, Police
Officer S.I. Bachchoo Singh,Officer-In-charge of
Police Outpost Jalyavu Vihar of Police Station Sector
20 and posse comitatus drawn from other Police
Stations also reached there. On inspection of bed
room of Ms. Aarushi it was found that the dead body
of the deceased was lying in the bed, her throat was
slit by a sharp-edged weapon, her head was on
pillow and bed sheet and mattress were soaked with
blood, her T-Shirt (Upper garment) was above the
waist, trouser was just below her waist and twine of
trouser untied but the articles of the room were
found properly arranged and placed in order. The
blood splatters were there on the wall behind the
head- rest of Aarushi’s bed. The services of
Constable Chunni Lal Gautam were requisitioned
who on 16.05.2008 at about 08.00 A.M. took the
photographs of room of Aarushi and lobby. He also
took finger prints on bottle of whisky, plate, glasses,
room of Hemraj, two bottle of liquor, one bottle of
sprite and main door.
Inquest on the dead body of Ms. Aarushi was
held by S.I. Bachchoo Singh, between 8.00 A.M. to
10.00 A.M. in the presence of Panch witnesses.
Thereafter, body was sealed and sent to the morgue
for Post-mortem examination though Constable Raj
Pal Singh and Pawan Kumar along with necessary
Page 5

papers. Dr. Sunil Kumar Dohre, Medical Officer,
Incharge of Primary Health Centre, Sector 22,
N.O.I.D.A. conducted autopsy on the cadaver of Ms.
Aarushi between 12.00 o’ clock in the noon till 01:30
P.M. The deceased was aged about 14 years, rigor
mortis was present in both upper limb and lower
limb. She was average built, both eyes were
congested. Whitish discharge was found in the
vagina. The following ante-mortem injuries were
found on the person of the deceased Aarushi:
1) Lacerated wound 4 cm. x 3 cm., 1 cm.
above left eye brow on frontal region. This
injury was entering into skull cavity.
2) Incised wound 2 cm. x 1 cm. on left eye
brow
3) Lacerated wound 8 cm. x 2 cm. on left
parietal region
4) Incised wound 14 cm. x 6 cm. on neck,
above thyroid cartilage. Trachea partially
incised. This wound was 3 cm. away from
left ear and 6 cm. away from right ear and 4
cm. below chin. Left carotid artery was slit.
On internal examination, there was fracture in
left parietal bone. Haematoma 8 cm. x 5 cm. was
present below parietal bone. Similar haematoma
was found on right side of skull, trachea was
partially cut, both the chambers of heart were
empty, lungs were normal. The deceased was
having teeth 15 x 15. Oesophagus and Peritoneum
were normal. Semi-digested food was found. The
deceased had died about 12-18 hours before due to
hypovolemia. Viscera of stomach with contents,
piece of small intestine, piece of liver with gall
Page 6

bladder, piece of one kidney was preserved and sent
for examination. Vaginal slides were prepared.
During investigation S.I. Data Ram Naunaria
seized the blood stained pillow, bed sheet and
pieces of mattress from the room of Aarushi in the
presence of witnesses Mohd. Aamir and Digambar
Singh and memo was prepared. Where after, 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. One Ballentine Scotch
bottle containing some liquor was recovered from
the table of dining hall. All these articles were seized
and a memo was prepared and signatures of the
witnesses Mohd. Aamir and Digambar Singh were
obtained thereon. A site-plan was also prepared by
him. The statements of Bharti Mandal, Jeevan, Mohd.
Aamir, Digambar Singh, Shivram, Vakil Ahmad,
Muzib-Ur-Rahman and Akhilesh Gupta were taken.
He tried to go to the roof of the house but the door
of the roof was found locked and the lock was
having blood stains. He 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. On 17.05.2008 Dr. Dinesh Talwar was
asked to provide the key of the lock of the door of
the terrace but he also told that he had no key with
him and therefore, the Investigator Data Ram
Naunaria broke open the lock of the door of the
terrace and went to the terrace along with K.K.
Gautam, a retired police officer, Dr. Sushil
Page 7

Chaudhary and Dr. Dinesh Talwar and found the
dead body of Hemraj lying there in a pool of blood.
The dead body was covered with a panel of cooler
and dragging marks were visible. Dr. Dinesh Talwar
was told to identify the dead body but he stated that
he could not recognize the dead body. However Ram
Prasad, Rudra Lal and other persons who had
gathered there identified the dead body as that of
Hemraj. On 17.05.2008 Constable Chunni Lal
Gautam took the photographs and finger prints of
the terrace.
Inquest on the dead body of Hemraj was held
by S.I. Bachchoo Singh betwixt 12.30 to 14.30 and,
thereafter, the dead body was sealed and sent to
mortuary through Constable Raj Pal Singh and
Pawan Kumar along with necessary Police papers.
Dr. Naresh Raj conducted Post-mortem examination
of the dead body of Hemraj on 17.05.2008 at about
9.00 P.M. as per order of the District Magistrate,
Gautam Budh Nagar. The deceased was aged about
45 years and average built. Rigor mortis was
present in the upper and lower limbs and had
passed from head and neck. His eyes were
protruding bilaterally. Bleeding from nostril and
mouth was seen. Penis was swollen. The following
ante-mortem injuries were found on his person:
1) Abrasion 3 cm. x 2 cm. behind the right
elbow.
2) Abraded contusion 3 cm. x 4 cm. behind the
left elbow
3) Incised wound on the front and sides of neck
above the level of thyroid cartilage. The
wound is 30 cms. long and is situated 5 cm.
Page 8

below right ear, 6 cm below left ear and 6
cm below the chin. The wound is involving
the trachea.
4) Abraded contusion 3 cm. x 2 cm. on the left
frontal region 2 cm above the left eye brow
5) Abraded contusion 2 cm. x 2 cm. on the left
frontal region
6) Lacerated wound 3 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep
on the occipital region
7) Lacerated wound 8 cm. x 2 cm. x bone deep
on the occipital region, 1 cm. below Injury
No. 05.
On internal examination, fracture of occipital
bone was seen. Trachea severed above the thyroid
cartilage. Chambers of both the heart were empty.
Abdomen was distended. The deceased was having
16/16 teeth. 25 ml. liquid contents were seen in the
stomach. The deceased died about 11/2-2 days
before as a result of shock due to hypovolemia,
caused by ante-mortem injuries. Viscera of stomach
with contents, piece of small intestine, piece of liver
with gall bladder, piece of one spleen and kidney
was preserved.
During the course of investigation, a red
coloured water of cooler was taken in a bottle and
its memo was prepared in the presence of
independent witnesses Shivram and Digambar
Singh. Blood stained and plain floor of the terrace
were also taken and memo thereof was prepared
and the signature of witnesses Taman Jeet Singh
Chaddha and Atul Sachdeva were obtained. Siteplan
of the terrace was also prepared by him. On the
same date the statements of Taman Jeet Singh
Page 9

Chaddha, Atul Sachdeva, Shiv Ram, Vakil Ahmad,
Digambar Singh, Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Dinesh
Talwar were taken. It was found from the
investigation that the evidence of the offence has
been concealed and therefore, Section 201 I.P.C.
was added. Report of slides was received on that
day. Where after, the investigation was transferred
to Mr. Anil Samania, S.H.O. of Police Station Sector
39, N.O.I.D.A. On 18.05.2008 Constable Chunni Lal
took the photographs of dead body of Hemraj from
the mortuary. On 23.05.2008 Dr. Rajesh Talwar was
arrested by the local police.
The Government of Uttar Pradesh issued
Notification No. 1937-VI-P-3-2008-15(48) P/2008
dated 29.05.2008 giving consent for transfer of
investigation from Police to C.B.I. Pursuant to that,
the Department of Personnel and Training,
Government of India, issued Notification No.
228/47/2008-AVD II dated 31.05.2008 where under
the investigation of the case was handed over to the
C.B.I. Consequently, C.B.I. registered RC No.
1(S)/2008/SCR-III/CBI/NEW DELHI on 31.05.2008.
The investigation was taken up by Mr. Vijay Kumar,
the then S.P., C.B.I./SCR-III New Delhi, who was
assisted by Additional S.P. Mr. T. Rajabalaji, Dy. S.Ps.
Mr. K.S. Thakur, R.S. Kureel and Hari Singh,
Inspectors M.S. Phartyal, Naresh Indora, R.K. Jha,
Mukesh Sharma etc. He visited the place of
occurrence along with retinue on 01.06.2008 and on
his direction Inspector Mukesh Sharma prepared
Memo of 14 articles which were seized and sealed.
Copy of the memo was supplied to Nupur Talwar. On
02.06.2008 on his directions T. Raja Balaji, Naresh
Page 10

Indora, team of C.F.S.L. experts, independent
witnesses Manoj Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar took in
possession the blood stained palm print on wall of
the terrace and its memo was prepared. On
13.06.2008 Krishna was arrested. On 14.06.2008
Dy. S.P. Mr. Kureel, Anuj Arya, Inspector R.K. Jha,
S.K. Singla and B.K. Mohapatra, the scientists and
Photographer Mr. Gautam of C.F.S.L. inspected the
servant quarter of Krishna in House No. L-14, Sector
25, N.O.I.D.A. and three articles were seized, sealed
and taken into possession. On 18.06.2008 Mr. Hari
Singh who was part of the investigating team, on
direction of the chief investigator Mr. Vijay Kumar
seized half Pant and T-shirt of Dr. Rajesh Talwar,
gown and bathroom slippers of Dr. Nupur Talwar and
4 set of shoes of Dr. Rajesh Talwar. On 27.06.2008
Raj Kumar was collared. On 11.07.2008 Vijay Mandal
was also apprehended. On 09.06.2008 psychological
test of Krishna was undertaken in A.I.I.M.S, New
Delhi. On 12.06.2008 Brain-mapping, Narco-analysis
and Polygraph tests of Krishna were conducted at
Forensic Science Laboratory, Bangalore. On
11.07.2008 C.B.I. filed report under section 169
Cr.P.C. in the court of Learned Special Judicial
Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad and accordingly Dr.
Rajesh Talwar was released from custody. Since Mr.
Vijay Kumar was bit off, the investigation was
transferred on 25.08.2008 to Inspector Mr. M.S.
Phartyal, who investigated the case till 13.03.2009
and during the course of investigation, he recorded
the statements of witnesses Sanjay Chauhan,
Ravindra Tyagi, Dr. Richa Saxena, Sankalp Arora,
Rudra Lal, Navneet Kaushik, Afzal Khan, S.I. B.R.
Page 11

Kakran, Constable Raj Pal, S.I. Data Ram Naunaria,
S.I. Bachchoo Singh, Dr. S.C. Singhal, Punish Rai
Tandon, Dr. Suneel Kumar Dohre and Kripa Shankar
Tripathi. He was assisted in the investigation by
Inspector Richh Pal Singh, Inspector Pankaj Bansal,
Inspector N.R. Meena and S.I. Yatish Sharma.
Thereafter, he was transferred to C.B.I., A.C.B.,
Dehradun and hence investigation was transferred
to Inspector Richh Pal Singh, who conducted
independent investigation from March 2009 to first
week of September 2009 although he was assisting
I.O. from the inception. After that, the investigation
was made over to Mr. A.G.L. Kaul, Dy. S.P., C.B.I.,
SC-III, who in the course of investigation inspected
the scene of crime, created e-mail IDhemraj.jalvayuvihar@gmail.com
to remain in touch
with the accused and again recorded the statements
of relevant witnesses. He also directed Dr. Rajesh
Talwar to produce golf sticks. Prior to that Dr. Rajesh
Talwar was enquired about one missing golf stick
but he had not given satisfactory explanation
thereof. The golf sticks were sent to C.F.S.L. for
examination. S.P., C.B.I., Dehradun had asked Dr.
Rajesh Talwar that when one golf stick was missing
then how he had produced the complete set, then
on behalf of Dr. Rajesh Talwar one Ajay Chaddha
had sent an e-mail from his e-mail ID
ajay@mediconz.com to Mr. Kaul intimating therein
that one golf stick was found in the attic opposite to
the room of Aarushi during cleaning of the flat. 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
Page 12

Dr. Rajesh Talwar, who stated that said two golf
sticks were kept by him in the room of Hemraj. The
identification proceeding was conducted in the
presence of witness Laxman Singh. Dr. Rajesh
Talwar had told him that the book titled ‘Three
mistakes of my life’ was in the bed of Aarushi at the
time of her murder. Dr. Rajesh Talwar handed over
the said book and carton of mobile set of Aarushi to
Inspector Arvind Jaitley. The I.M.E.I. No. of this
mobile set which was used by Ms. Aarushi was
printed on card-board/carton and the same mobile
set having this I.M.E.I. No. was recovered later on. In
the book no blood or DNA was traced. Mr. Kaul also
conducted a dummy test and its memo was
prepared. After completing the investigation Mr.
Kaul reached to the conclusion that these twin
murders were committed by the accused persons
and not by Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal or
any other outsider. However, on interventions of
super sleuths of C.B.I. closure report was laid by Mr.
Kaul in the court of Learned Special Judicial
Magistrate (C.B.I.), Ghaziabad on
29.12.2010/01.01.2011 who on receipt of the said
report issued notice to the informant-Dr. Rajesh
Talwar, who being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with
the closure report filed protest petition seeking
impetratory relief to direct C.B.I. for carrying out
further investigation but the same was rejected. The
closure report was also rejected by the Learned
Magistrate on 09.02.2011 and took cognizance of
the offence under section 190 (1)(b) of the code of
criminal procedure and summoned both the accused
persons to stand trial for offences punishable under
Page 13

sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC. The said order was
challenged in the Hon’ble High Court, Allahabad but
without success. Thereafter, the matter was carried
to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where also it met its
waterloo and the order passed by the Learned
Magistrate was finally affirmed and received the
imprimatur of the Hon’ble Court Apex.
The case, being exclusively triable by the court
of sessions was committed to the court of sessions
by the order dated 09.05.2012 passed by the
Learned Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Ghaziabad.
Accordingly, the case was registered in the learned
Court of Sessions, Ghaziabad on 10.05.2012 and
subsequently made over to this court same day,
and, thus the inexorable course of law has taken the
accused to this court.
Both the accused were charged for offences
punishable under section 302 read with section 34
and section 201 read with section 34 I.P.C.
Therewithal, Dr. Rajesh Talwar was also charged for
offence punishable under section 203 I.P.C. Both the
accused abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution in support of the
accusations/charges examined P.W.-1 Constable
Chunni Lal Gautam, P.W.-2 Rajesh Kumar, P.W.-3
Amar Dev Sah, P.W.-4 Sanjay Chauhan, P.W.-5 Dr.
Sunil Kumar Dohre, P.W.-6 Dr. B.K. Mohapatra,
P.W.-7 K.K. Gautam, P.W.-8 Shohrat, P.W.-9 Virendra
Singh, P.W.-10 Mrs. Bharti Mandal, P.W.-11 Kripa
Shankar Tripathi, P.W.-12 Punish Rai Tondon,
P.W.-13 Dr. Rajeev Kumar Varshney, P.W.-14 Dr.
Rohit Kochar, P.W.-15 Umesh Sharma, P.W. 16-
Page 14

Laxman Singh, P.W. 17- Deepak Kanda, P.W.-18
Bhupendra Singh Avasya, P.W.-19 Deepak, P.W.-20
Vinod Bhagwan Ram Teke, P.W.-21 R.K. Singh,
P.W.-22 M.N. Vijayan, P.W.-23 Mrs. Kusum, P.W.-24
Suresh Kumar Singla, P.W.-25 S.P.R. Prasad, P.W.-26
Deepak Kumar Tanwar, P.W.-27 Dr. Rajendra Singh,
P.W.-28 Constable Pawan Kumar, P.W.-29 Mahesh
Kumar Mishra, P.W.-30 Dr. Dinesh Kumar, P.W.-31
Hari Singh, P.W.-32 Richh Pal Singh, P.W.-33 S.I.
Bachchu Singh, P.W.-34 S.I. Data Ram Naunaria,
P.W.-35 Inspector M.S. Phartyal, P.W.-36 Dr. Naresh
Raj, P.W.-37 Vijay Kumar, P.W.-38 Dr. Mohinder
Singh Dahiya and P.W.-39 A.G.L. Kaul.
P.W.-2 has proved his letter as Exhibit–Ka-1.
P.W.-3 has proved examination report as Exhibit –
Ka-2. P.W.-5 has proved postmortem examination
report as Exhibit–Ka-3, entry of postmortem no.
356/8 dated 16.05.2008 in the Post-Mortem Register
as Exhibit–Ka-4, entry at serial no. 53 of Viscera
Register as Exhibit–Ka-5. P.W.-6 has proved his
examination report dated 19.06.2008 as Exhibit–
Ka-6, letter dated 19.06.2008 of Smt. Bibha Rani
Ray as Exhibit–Ka-7, examination report dated
01.07.2008 as Exhibit–Ka-8, letter dated 02.07.2008
of Smt. Bibha Rani Ray as Exhibit–Ka-9, examination
report dated 30.06.2008 as Exhibit–Ka-10,letter
dated 30.06.2008 of Smt. Bibha Rani Ray as Exhibit–
Ka-11, examination report dated 21.07.2008 as
Exhibit–Ka-12,examination report dated 15.10.2009
as Exhibit–Ka-13,examination report dated
15.07.2010 as Exhibit–Ka-14. P.W.-11 has proved
the photocopy of entry dated 16.05.2008 made at
page no.18 of cremation register as Exhibit–Ka-15,
Page 15

P.W.-13 has proved his statement recorded under
section 164 Cr.P.C. as Exhibit–Ka-16. P.W.-14 has
proved his statement recorded under section 164
Cr.P.C. as Exhibit – Ka-17. P.W.- 16 has proved golf
clubs identification memo as Exhibit–Ka-18. P.W.-17
has proved print out of e-mail sent to Mr. Neelabh
Kishore as Exhibit–Ka-19, print out of e-mail sent by
Mr. Neelabh Kihsore as Exhibit–Ka-20, print out of
bill and call details record as Exhibit–Ka-21, print out
of internet log as Exhibit–Ka-22. P.W.-18 has proved
letter dated 21.09.2010 as Exhibit–Ka-23. P.W.-19
has proved certificate under section 65-B of
Evidence Act as Exhibit–Ka-24, print out of call
details record pertaining to mobile no. 9999101094
as Exhibit–Ka-25, certificate under section 65-B of
Evidence Act as Exhibit–Ka-26, print out of call
details record pertaining to mobile no. 9899555999
as Exhibit–Ka-27.P.W.-20 has proved his
examination report dated 18.06.2008 as Exhibit–
Ka-28. P.W.-21 has proved his letter dated
08.08.2008 as Exhibit–Ka-29,photocopy of consumer
application form of Dr. Rajesh Talwar relating to
mobile no. 9910520630 as Exhibit–Ka-30,photocopy
of consumer application form of Dr. Rajesh Talwar
relating to mobile no. 9871557235 as Exhibit–Ka-31,
photocopy of consumer application form of Rakesh
Arora relating to mobile no. 9810509911 as Exhibit–
Ka-32, photocopy of consumer application form of
Dr. Rajesh Talwar relating to mobile no. 9871625746
as Exhibit–Ka-33,photocopy of consumer application
form of Dr. Prafull Durrani relating to mobile no.
9910669540 as Exhibit–Ka-34,photocopy of
consumer application form of Dr. Rajesh Talwar
Page 16

relating to mobile no. 9810037926 as Exhibit–Ka-35,
print out of call details record of mobile no.
9910520630 as Exhibit–Ka-36,mobile no.
9871625746 as Exhibit–Ka-37,mobile no.
9810037926 as Exhibit–Ka-38,mobile no.
9871557235 as Exhibit–Ka-39,mobile no.
9810302298 as Exhibit–Ka-40,mobile no.
9810165092 as Exhibit–Ka-41,mobile no.
9810178071 as Exhibit–Ka-42,mobile no.
9810096246 as Exhibit–Ka-43,mobile no.
9910669540 as Exhibit–Ka-44 and mobile no.
9810509911 as Exhibit – Ka-45. P.W.-22 has proved
his letter dated 18.11.2010 as Exhibit – Ka-46, print
out of call details records of mobile no. 9213515485
as Exhibit–Ka-47 and photocopy of consumer
application form of Dr. Rajesh Talwar relating to his
mobile no. 9213515485 as Exhibit–Ka-48. P.W.-24
has proved his serological examination report dated
23.06.2008 as Exhibit–Ka-49. P.W.-25 has proved
letter dated 06.11.2008 of Director of
C.D.F.D.,Hyderabad as Exhibit–Ka-50,report dated
06.11.2008 of C.D.F.D., Hyderabad as Exhibit–Ka-51,
clarificatory letter dated 24.03.2011 of Dr. N.
Madhusudan Reddy of C.D.F.D., Hyderabad as
Exhibit–Ka-52, golf sticks examination report dated
13.07.2010 as Exhibit–Ka-53, diagram of golf sticks
as Exhibit–Ka-54,memo of experiments relating to
carriage of dead body as Exhibit– Ka-55. P.W.-27 has
proved his crime scene reconstruction report dated
16.12.2012 as Exhibit–Ka-56, observation memo
relating to crime scene reconstruction as Exhibit –
Ka-57 and crime scene inspection report as Exhibit –
Ka-58. P.W.-30 has proved letter of Mr. Kandpal of
Page 17

Maulana Azad Institute of Dental Sciences, New
Delhi as Exhibit–Ka-59. P.W.-31 has proved seizure
memo dated 18.06.2008 as Exhibit–Ka-60. P.W.-32
has proved memo dated 30.10.2009 pertaining to
seizure of 12 golf clubs, receipt memo dated
02.07.2008 and seizure memo dated 13.09.2009 as
Exhibits Ka 61-63 respectively. P.W.-33 has proved
inquest report of the dead body of the deceased Ms.
Aarushi as Exhibit – Ka-64, police Form No. 13 as
Exhibit–Ka-65, diagram/sketch of dead body as
Exhibit–Ka-66, report of C.M.O. as Exhibit–
Ka-67,specimen seal impression as Exhibit–Ka-68,
endorsement on back of police Form No. 13 as
Exhibit–Ka-69, original chik F.I.R. of Police Station
Sector 20, N.O.I.D.A. as Exhibit–Ka-70, inquest
report of the deceased Hemraj as Exhibit–Ka-71,
report of C.M.O. as Exhibit – Ka-72, diagram/ sketch
of dead body as Exhibit–Ka-73, police Form No. 13
as Exhibit–Ka-74, endorsement on back of police
Form No. 13 as Exhibit–Ka-75, order of the District
Magistrate, Gautambudh Nagar for conducting
postmortem examination in the night as Exhibit –
Ka-76. P.W.-34 has proved G.D. No. 12 dated
16.05.2008 of 07.10 A.M. as Exhibit–Ka-77, seizure
memo dated 16.05.2008 as Exhibit–Ka-78,another
seizure memo dated 16.05.2008 as Exhibit–Ka-79,
site-plan as Exhibit –Ka-80, carbon copy of letter
sent to C.M.O., Gautam Budh Nagar as Exhibit–
Ka-81, memo regarding breaking open of lock of the
door of terrace and its seizure as Exhibit– Ka-82,
memo regarding taking of water of cooler as Exhibit–
Ka-83, memo regarding taking of blood stained and
plain floor as Exhibit – Ka-84 and sight plan of
Page 18

terrace as Exhibit–Ka-85. P.W.-35 has proved seizure
memo dated 01.06.2008 as Exhibit–Ka-86, memo
dated 05.11.2008 regarding receipt of photocopy of
ashes-register of crematorium of N.O.I.D.A. as
Exhibit – Ka-87. P.W.-36 has proved postmortem
examination report of Hemraj as Exhibit–Ka-88.
P.W.-37 has proved chik F.I.R. of RC No.1(S)/2008 as
Exhibit–Ka-89,inspection memo dated 01.06.2008 of
the scene of crime as Exhibit–Ka-90, crime scene
(terrace of Flat No. L-32, Jalvayu Vihar) examination
memo as Exhibit–Ka-91,inspection of servant
quarter of House No. L-14, Sector 25 and inspection
cum seizure memo dated 14.06.2008 as Exhibit–
Ka-92. P.W.-38 has proved crime scene analysis
report as Exhibit–Ka-93 and his letter dated
26.10.2009 as Exhibit–Ka-94. Both the accused have
admitted the genuineness of report of Dr. Rajesh
Talwar addressed to S.H.O.,Police Station Sector-20,
N.O.I.D.A. and hence it was marked as Exhibit–
Ka-95. P.W.-39 has proved print out of e-mail sent
by Ajay Chaddha to him as Exhibit–Ka-96, Production
cum seizure memo dated 26.09.2009 as Exhibit–
Ka-97 and closure report as Exhibit–Ka-98. The
learned public prosecutor has got proved e-mail of
Dr. Andrei Semikhodskii, Director, Medical
Genomics, London sent to this court and e-mail of
Dr. Andrei Semikhodskii sent on 10.06.2010 to S.P.,
C.B.I., ACB, Dehradun by D.W.-7 and hence they are
respectively marked as Exhibits–Ka-99 and Ka-100.
P.W.-1 has also proved 23 photographs as
material Exhibits-1 to 23, 25 negatives as material
Exhibits-24 to 48. P.W.-3 has proved carton as
material Exhibit-49, tag as material Exhibit-50,
Page 19

bottle of scotch whisky as material Exhibit-51,
polythene with which this bottle was wrapped as
material Exhibit-52, envelope inside which this
bottle was kept as material Exhibit-53. P.W.-6 Dr.
B.K. Mohapatra has proved envelope as material
Exhibit-54, bed sheet as material Exhibit-55, empty
envelope as material Exhibit-56, pillow with cover as
material Exhibit-57, piece of mattress as material
Exhibit-58, concrete material inclusive of container
as material Exhibit-59, envelope of parcel as
material Exhibit-60, one sealed cloth as material
Exhibit-61, scratched material of floor along with
container as material Exhibit-62, parcel as material
Exhibit-63, one cloth of seal as material Exhibit-64,
lock as material Exhibit-65, parcel as material
Exhibit-66, one cloth of seal as material Exhibit-67,
small envelope as material Exhibit-68, empty bottle
of beer of Kingfisher Company as material
Exhibit-69, polythene with which this bottle was
wrapped as material Exhibit-70, envelope as
material Exhibit-71, bottle of sprite as material
Exhibit-72, polythene as material Exhibit-73, cloth of
seal as material Exhibit-74, envelope as material
Exhibit-75,Sula wine bottle as material Exhibit-76,
polythene as material Exhibit-77,envelope as
material Exhibit-78, green coloured top (shirt of
Aarushi) as material Exhibit-79, lower (trouser) of
Aarushi as material Exhibit-80, under-wear of
Aarushi as material Exhibit-81, 5 ear-tops
collectively marked as Exhibit-82, empty polythene
as material Exhibit-83, the cloth in which ear-tops
were wrapped as material Exhibit-84,envelope as
material Exhibit-85, another envelope as material
Page 20

Exhibit-86, T-shirt of deceased Hemraj as material
Exhibit-87, envelope in which this shirt was kept as
material Exhibit-88, envelope as material Exhibit-89,
tag as material Exhibit-90, pantaloon of Hemraj as
material Exhibit-91, envelope as material Exhibit-92,
another envelope as material Exhibit-93, tag as
material Exhibit-94, vest of Hemraj as material
Exhibit-95, envelope as material Exhibit-96, another
envelope as material Exhibit-97, tag as material
Exhibit-98, blood stained under-wear of Hemraj as
material Exhibit-99, envelope as material
Exhibit-100, another envelope as material
Exhibit-101, tag as material Exhibit-102, wrist watch
of Hemraj as material Exhibit-103, envelope as
material Exhibit-104, polythene as material
Exhibit-105, envelope as material Exhibit-106, tag
as material Exhibit-107, plastic tube as material
Exhibit-108, envelope as material Exhibit-109,
another envelope as material Exhibit-110, tag of
parcel no. 10 as material Exhibit-111, envelope of
parcel no. 10 as material Exhibit-112, small
envelope as material Exhibit-113, envelope of parcel
no. 11 as material Exhibit-114, tag of parcel no. 11
as material Exhibit-115, small envelope as material
Exhibit-116, envelope of parcel no. 12 as material
Exhibit-117, tag of parcel no. 12 as material
Exhibit-118, small envelope as material Exhibit-119,
tag of parcel no. 13 as material Exhibit-120,
envelope of parcel no. 13 as material Exhibit-121,
small envelope as material Exhibit-122, earth as
material Exhibit-123, tag of parcel no. 14 as material
Exhibit-124, envelope of parcel no. 14 as material
Exhibit-125, small envelope as material Exhibit-126,
Page 21

tag of parcel no. 15 as material Exhibit-127,
envelope as material Exhibit- 128, small envelope as
material Exhibit-129, tag of parcel no. 16 as material
Exhibit-130, envelope of parcel no. 16 as material
Exhibit-131, small envelope as material Exhibit-132,
tag of parcel no. 17 as material Exhibit-133,
envelope of parcel no. 17 as material Exhibit-134,
small envelope as material Exhibit-135, tag of parcel
no. 18 as material Exhibit-136, envelope of parcel
no. 18 as material Exhibit-137, small envelope as
material Exhibit-138, tag of parcel no. 19-A as
material Exhibit-139, envelope of parcel no.19-A as
material Exhibit-140, small envelope as material
Exhibit-141, tag of parcel no. 19-B as material
Exhibit-142, envelope of parcel no. 19-B as material
Exhibit-143, small envelope as material Exhibit-144,
tag of Exhibit 19-C as material Exhibit-145, envelope
as material Exhibit-146, small envelope as material
Exhibit-147, tag of Exhibit 19-D as material
Exhibit-148,envelope as material Exhibit-149, small
envelope as material Exhibit-150, tag of Exhibit 19-E
as material Exhibit-151, envelope as material
Exhibit-152, small envelope as material Exhibit-153,
tag of Exhibit 19-F as material Exhibit-154, envelope
as material Exhibit-155, small envelope as material
Exhibit-156, tag of Exhibit 19-G as material
Exhibit-157,envelope as material Exhibit-158, small
envelope as material Exhibit- 159, tag of Exhibit 19-
H as material Exhibit-160, envelope as material
Exhibit-161, small envelope as material Exhibit-162,
tag of Exhibit 19-I as material Exhibit-163, envelope
as material Exhibit-164, small envelope as material
Exhibit-165, tag of Exhibit 19-J as material
Page 22

Exhibit-166,envelope as material Exhibit-167,small
envelope as material Exhibit- 168, tag of parcel no.
20 as material Exhibit-169, bed sheet as material
Exhibit-170, envelope of parcel no. 20 as material
Exhibit-171, three envelopes as material
Exhibit-172, 173, 174, tag of parcel no. 21 as
material Exhibit-175,pillow with cover as material
Exhibit-176, cloth of seal as material Exhibit-177,
one thick brown coloured paper of big size as
material Exhibit-178, tag of parcel no. 22 as material
Exhibit-180, blanket as material Exhibit-181, cloth of
seal as material Exhibit-182, brown coloured thick
paper in which blanket was wrapped as material
Exhibit-183, wrapper of packet as material
Exhibit-184, tag of parcel no. 23 as material
Exhibit-185, cello tape as material Exhibit-186,
envelope in which bag was wrapped as material
Exhibit-187, main envelope as material Exhibit-188,
enlarged photo of blood stained palm print as
material Exhibit-189, tag of half pant as material
Exhibit-190, half pant as material Exhibit-191, paper
in which pant was wrapped as material Exhibit-192,
tag of T-shirt as material Exhibit-193, T-shirt as
material Exhibit-194, paper in which T-shirt was
wrapped as material Exhibit-195, tag of nightie as
material Exhibit-196, nightie as material Exhibit-197,
paper in which nightie was wrapped as material
Exhibit-198, yellow coloured envelope as material
Exhibit-199, another envelope as material
Exhibit-200, main envelope as material Exhibit- 201,
tag of the book “The three mistakes of my life” as
material Exhibit-202, the above mentioned book as
material Exhibit-203, yellow envelope as material
Page 23

Exhibit-204, main envelope as material Exhibit-205,
carton as material Exhibit-206. P.W.-12 has proved
golf bag as material Exhibit-207. P.W.-25 has proved
chit of Exhibit 176 as material Exhibit-208, parcel as
material Exhibit- 209, envelope as material
Exhibit-210 and other envelope as material
Exhibit-211, white cloth as material Exhibit-212,
empty envelope as material Exhibit-213, paper of
packet as material Exhibit- 214, pillow cover of
purple colour as material Exhibit- 215, two tags as
material Exhibit-216, 217, chit of Exhibit no. 214 as
material Exhibit-218, golf sticks as material
Exhibits-219 to 230 and envelope in which these
sticks were sealed as material Exhibit-231.P.W.-32
has proved envelope as material Exhibit-232, white
envelope as material Exhibit-233, brown coloured
envelope as material Exhibit-234, other envelope in
which jars were kept as material Exhibit-235, four
jars as material Exhibits-236, 237, 238, 239, four
slides as material Exhibits- 240, 241, 242, 243,
envelope as material Exhibit-244, carton in which
mobile having SIM No. 9639029306 was kept as
material Exhibit- 245, mobile set as material
Exhibit-246 and tag as material Exhibit-247.
After closure of the prosecution evidence the
accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C.
The accused Dr. Rajesh Talwar has admitted in his
statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. that on
15.05.2008 at about 9.30 P.M. his driver Umesh
Sharma had dropped him in his residence and at
that time he, Dr. Nupur Talwar, Baby Aarushi and
servant Hemraj were present. Gate No. 2 of Jalvayu
Vihar is closed in the night but Gate No. 1 and 3
Page 24

remain opened. He and his wife had gone to sleep at
about 11.30 P.M. and the air conditioner of their
room was on. He has no idea as to whether the
supply of electricity was disrupted or not in that
fateful night. He has admitted that Smt. Bharti
Mandal used to work in his house as a housemaid
and when at about 6.00 am on 16.05.2008 Smt.
Bharti Mandal had rung the call-bell, he was asleep.
His wife Dr. Nupur Talwar had not told Smt. Bharti
Mandal that the grill door is latched from outside but
Nupur Talwar had thrown the keys from the balcony.
The witness Sanjay Chauhan had never visited his
residence. When he and his wife had seen the dead
body of Aarushi it was covered with a flannel blanket
but her upper garment was not above the waist and
lower garment not below the waist. They were not in
position to talk to anyone as they were lugubrious.
He has admitted that the lock of the room of Aarushi
was like that of a hotel which if locked from the
outside, could be opened from inside without key
but could not be opened from outside without key.
The door of the room of Hemraj opening towards
main door remained closed. He has also admitted
that in the dinning table one bottle of Ballentine
Scotch Whisky was found but there was no any
tumbler and except in the room of Aarushi, no blood
stains were found at the remaining part of the house
and even in upstairs there were no blood stains.
Nobody had asked him to give the key of door of the
terrace. School bag and whim-whams were in the
bed of Aarushi but he has no knowledge as to
whether these were having blood stains or not. He
had not gone to the police station to lodge his
Page 25

report,nay, the report was dictated to him by police
personnel in his house. The site-plan is not on scale
and in the site-plan bathroom of the room of Hemraj
has been wrongly shown and shaft has been wrongly
shown to be part of that room. He had not noticed
as to whether the bed-sheet of Aarushi’s bed had
any wrinkles or not. On hearing ululation Mr. Punish
Rai Tandon had come to his house but he had not
pushed aside him when he tried to console him. Dr.
Rajeev Kumar Varshney and Dr. Rohit Kochar had
also come to his house. He was wearing T-shirt and
half pant and Dr. Nupur was wearing peignoir since
night and it is incorrect to say that their clothes
were not stained with blood. He has stated that
presence of white discharge in the vaginal cavity of
Aarushi is matter of record but the statement of Dr.
Sunil Kumar Dohre that opening of vaginal cavity
was prominent is incorrect in as much as this fact
has not been mentioned in the postmortem
examination report and in the first three statements
given to the investigating officer. The evidence that
hymen was old, healed and torn is nothing but an
act of calumny and character assassination of his
daughter. It is also incorrect to say that injuries no. 1
and 3 of Aarushi were caused by golf stick and
injuries no. 2 and 4 were caused by sharp-edged
surgical weapon. He has no knowledge as to
whether the room of Aarushi was cleaned and
mattress was kept in the terrace of House No. L-28
as at that time he was away at the crematorium to
perform obsequies of his daughter. He has also
admitted that 3-4 months prior to the occurrence he
had sent his Santro Car for servicing and he has no
Page 26

knowledge as to where the golf sticks and other
items lying in the car were kept by the driver Umesh
Sharma. 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. He has also admitted that there
is an iron grill wall between the terraces of House
No. L-30 and L-32 but he has no knowledge as to
whether any bed-sheet was placed on this partition
wall. He has also admitted that on 17.05.2008 ashes
of Aarushi were collected and locker no. 09 was
allotted for keeping the ashes. These ashes were not
taken out after half an hour but after 02.00-02.30
hours. It is incorrect to say that S.I. Data Ram
Naunaria had enquired of him about the identity of
the dead body lying in the terrace rather he had
identified the dead body of Hemraj by his hairs in
the presence of other police officer. He has also
admitted that Hemraj was average built but he has
no knowledge as to whether his willy was turgid. He
has admitted that on 15.05.2008 at about 11.00
P.M. his wife had gone to Aarushi’s room to switch
on the internet router and he and his wife went to
sleep around 11.30-11.35 P.M. and the same activity
was seen from 6.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. on 16.05.2008,
although computers were shut down. He has also
admitted that mobile number 9213515485 was in
his name but the same was used by Hemraj and
whether any call was made from land line number
120-4316387 to mobile number 9213515485 at
06:00:10 hours on 16.05.2008 is a matter of record.
Page 27

It is on the record that the pillow with cover was
recovered from the room of Hemraj. It is incorrect to
say that no DNA was generated in pillow cover and
kukri. He has stated that Exhibit Z-20 code
Y-204CL-14 was a pillow cover of purple colour in
which DNA was generated. He has also stated that
case property was tampered with, hence a
complaint was sent by him to Department of BioTechnology
that report has been changed. Since the
house was in damaged condition and was to be let
out and therefore, it was got washed/painted. It is
incorrect to say that partition wall was of wood. It
was made of bricks over which wooden panelling
was done and same was got painted on the
suggestion of painter as its polish had faded away.
Iron grill of main gate and balcony were
unauthorized and therefore, these were got
removed and nobody has objected to it. Mr. M.S.
Dahiya has given his report on imaginary grounds.
Mobile number 9899555999 is in the name of
Invertis Institute and not in the name of K.K.
Gautam. He has also admitted that area of his house
is 1300 sq. feet and it has only one entry gate. He
has also admitted that the door of Aarushi’s room
was having click shut automatic lock which could be
opened from inside without key but could not be
opened from outside without key. Mr. Ajay Chaddha
had never sent an e-mail to Mr. Neelabh Kishore,
S.P., C.B.I., Dehradun on his behalf. He has no
knowledge as to whether main door was bolted from
outside or not at the time of incident. It is incorrect
to say that murders were not committed by an
outsider or by Krishna, Raj Kumar and Vijay Mandal
Page 28

and rather by him and the co-accused. Regarding
the remaining evidence, he has stated that either it
is a matter of record or is false or he is not having
any knowledge about the same. He has also filed
written statement paper no. 399-kha/1 to 399-
kha/11 under section 313 Cr.P.C.
Dr. Nupur Talwar has also admitted in her
examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. that on
15.05.2008 at about 09.30 P.M. she, Dr. Rajesh
Talwar, baby Aarushi and servant Hemraj were
present at L-32, Jalvayu Vihar, Sector 25, Noida. The
three gates of Jalvayu Vihar remain opened round
the clock but in the night one of the gates is closed.
She has also admitted that Smt. Bharti Mandal was
working in her house as housemaid and on
16.05.2008 at about 6.00 A.M. Smt. Bharti Mandal
had rung call-bell but she did not go to open the
door assuming that Hemraj would open the door.
Smt. Bharti Mandal has falsely deposed that she had
pushed the grill door but it could not be opened in
view of the fact that this statement was not given to
the investigating officer. It is correct that she had
told Smt. Bharti Mandal that Hemraj may have gone
to bring milk. It is also correct that wooden door and
mesh door are in the same frame. It is also correct
that she had told Smt. Bharti Mandal that door will
be opened when Hemraj came back and until then
she should wait. She has also admitted that Smt.
Bharti Mandal had enquired of her as to whether she
is having the key of the door and she had replied in
the affirmative. She has also admitted that
thereupon Smt. Bharti Mandal asked her to give the
key so that she may come inside the house after
Page 29

unlocking the door and then she had told Smt.
Bharti Mandal to go to ground level and she would
be giving key to her. But it is incorrect to say that
when Smt. Bharti Mandal reached at ground level,
she might have told her from balcony that she
should come up and see that door has not been
locked and only latched. She has also admitted that
she had thrown duplicate key on the ground level.
She has stated that when Smt. Bharti Mandal came
inside the house, she and her husband were
weeping. She has admitted that school bag and toys
were in the bed of Aarushi but she has no
knowledge as to whether these were having blood
stains or not. She has also admitted that there were
blood splatters on the back wall of the bed but not
on the outer side of the door. When Aarushi was
seen her body was covered with a flannel blanket
but the status of the clothes worn by her were not
such as deposed to by P.W.-29 Mahesh Kumar
Mishra, who had not talked to Dr. Rajesh Talwar. She
has also admitted that lock of the door of Aarushi’s
room was like that of hotel which if locked from
outside could be opened from inside but could not
be opened from outside without key. She had not
told Mahesh Kumar Mishra that outer door of the
house was of grill and it was latched from outside
and after opening the same Smt. Bharti Mandal
came inside the house. She has also admitted that
the servant room has two doors and one opened
towards the house and other one towards the main
gate but the door towards the main gate remained
closed and it was not used. She has also admitted
that Ballentine Scotch bottle was found in the
Page 30

dinning table without any tumbler. She has also
stated that except in the room of Aarushi blood
stains were not found at the remaining part of the
house. She has also stated that in the stairs no
blood stains were found. Mahesh Kumar Mishra had
not asked Dr. Rajesh Talwar to provide key of the
door of the terrace. S.I. Bachchu Singh had never
tried to talk to her and her husband. Dr. Rajesh
Talwar had never gone to the police station to lodge
a report and rather complaint was dictated to Dr.
Rajesh Talwar by police personnel in the house. She
and her husband were fully mournful. She had not
noticed as to whether the bed-sheet had any
wrinkles/folds on it. Punish Rai Tandon had come to
her house on hearing boohoo. Dr. Rajesh Talwar had
not shrugged off Punish Rai Tandon. She and her
husband were badly weeping. She has also stated
that Dr. Rajesh Talwar was wearing T-shirt and half
pant and she was wearing maxi since night and it is
incorrect to say that their clothes were not stained
with blood. It is also incorrect to say that Aarushi
had died 12-18 hours before postmortem
examination. She has admitted that in the
postmortem examination report white discharge has
been shown in the vaginal cavity of Aarushi. It is
incorrect to say that deceased Aarushi may have
died three hours after taking the dinner. Dr. Sunil
Kumar Dohre has falsely deposed that vaginal cavity
was open and vaginal canal was visible, that
opening of cavity was prominent in as much as this
fact has not been mentioned in the post-mortem
examination report and in the first four statements
given to the investigating officer. The evidence that
Page 31

hymen was old, healed and torn is false. It is also
incorrect to say that injuries no. 1 and 3 of Aarushi
were caused by golf stick and injuries no. 2 and 4
were caused by sharp-edged surgical weapon as this
fact was not stated before the investigating officer
in his four-five statements given earlier to the
investigating officer. She has no knowledge as to
whether the room of Aarushi was cleaned and
mattress was kept in the terrace of House No. L-28
as at that time she was at the place of cremation to
perform funeral rites of Aarushi. She has also
admitted that 3-4 months before the occurrence Dr.
Rajesh Talwar had sent his Santro Car for servicing
but she has no knowledge as to where the golf sticks
and other items lying in the car were kept by the
driver Umesh Sharma. About 8-10 days before the
incident, at the time of painting of flats, the
labourers used to take water from the water tank of
her house and then Hemraj had started locking the
door of the terrace and the key of that lock
remained with him. The ashes of Aarushi were kept
in locker of crematorium for about 2-3 hours. The
site-plan of the terrace is not on scale. On
15.05.2008 at about 11.30 P.M. she and her
husband had gone to sleep after switching off
laptop. The start and stop activity of internet may be
due to myriad reasons. She had made a telephone
call from land line number 0120-4316388 to mobile
number 9213515485, which was used by Hemraj.
Pillow with cover was recovered from the room of
Hemraj. She has falsified the evidence of P.W.-6 that
in pillow cover and kukri no D.N.A. was generated.
As per report Exhibit-Ka-51, the Exhibit-Z-20 code
Page 32

Y-0204CL-14 is a pillow cover of purple colour. The
clarificatory letter Exhibit-Ka-52 is illegal and the
report which was replaced conclusively established
the involvement of Krishna. The C.B.I. has tampered
with the case property. Since the house was to be
given on lease and therefore, it was got
painted/washed and there was no instruction for
abstaining from painting/washing. It is incorrect to
say that partition wall was of wood. It was made of
bricks over which wooden panelling was done and
the same was got painted on the suggestion of
painter as its polish had withered away. Iron grill of
main gate and balcony were unauthorized and
therefore, these were got removed and C.B.I. had
not restrained to make any alteration. Mr. M.S.
Dahiya has given his report on imaginary grounds.
She has also admitted that area of her house is 1300
sq. feet and it has only one entry gate. She has also
admitted that the door of Aarushi’s room was having
click shut automatic lock of Godrej company which
could be opened from inside without key but could
not be opened from outside without key. Mr. Ajay
Chaddha had never sent an e-mail to Mr. Neelabh
Kishore, S.P., C.B.I., Dehradun on their behalf. Mr.
Kaul had full evidence against Krishna, Raj Kumar
and Vijay Mandal but it was concealed by him to
mislead the court. In respect of the other evidence,
she has stated that either it is a matter of record or
is false or she is not having any knowledge about
the same. She has also filed written statement
under section 313 Cr.P.C. which is paper no. 400-
kha/1 to 400-kha/12.
Page 33

The accused persons have examined D.W.-1
Rajendra kaul, D.W.-2 Dr. Amulya Chaddha, D.W.-3
Dr. Urmil Sharma, D.W.-4 Dr. R.K. Sharma, D.W.-5
Vikas Sethi, D.W.-6 Vishal Gaurav and D.W.-7 Dr.
Andrei Semikhodksii in defence.
Fingerprint reports dated 29.05.2008,
30.07.2008,24.07.2008, 17.06.2008 and 13.06.2008
have been got proved by P.W.-3 and hence these
have been respectively marked as Exhibits-kha-1,
kha-2, kha-3, kha-4 and kha-5. Fingerprints paper
no.- 45-kha/1 to 45-kha/5 have been got proved by
P.W.-1 and hence have been respectively marked as
Exhibits-kha-6, kha-7, kha-8, kha-9 and kha-10.
Letter dated 22.12.2009 (paper no. 189-Aa/1) of Dr.
Bibha Rani Ray, Director, C.F.S.L., New Delhi,
genoplots paper no. 189-Aa/2, 189-Aa/3 and
photocopy of report dated 28.12.2010 paper no. 86-
ka/1 to 86-ka/3 have been got proved by P.W.-6 Dr.
B.K. Mohapatra and as such have been marked as
Exhibits-kha-11, kha-12, kha-13 and kha-14
respectively. Report dated 20.06.2008 paper no.
171-Aa/6, 171-Aa/7 and report dated 18.06.2008
paper no. 163-Aa/6 have been got proved by
P.W.-26 and hence marked as Exhibits-kha-15 and
kha-16. Report dated 06.09.2008 paper no. 154-
Aa/2 to 154-Aa/19 has been got proved by P.W.-27
and, as such, marked as Exhibit-kha-17.Seizure
memo dated 11.06.2008 paper no. 125-Aa, seizure
memo dated 12.06.2008 paper no. 112-Aa/1 to 112-
Aa/2, observation-cum-seizure memo paper no. 114-
Aa have been got proved by P.W.-32 and therefore,
marked as Exhibits-kha-18, kha-19 and kha-20
respectively.Application dated 11.06.2008 for
Page 34

granting permission of brain mapping, lie detection
and narco analysis examinations of the suspect
Krishna at F.S.L., Bangalore has been got proved by
P.W.-35 and, hence, has been marked as Exhibitkha-21.Production
cum seizure memo dated
06.07.2008 paper no. 119-Aa/1 has been got proved
by P.W.-37 and marked as Exhibit-kha-22. The
genuineness of reports paper no. 187-Aa/2 to 187-
Aa/4 and 190-Aa/1 has been admitted by the
Learned Counsel for the accused persons and,
hence, paper no. 187-Aa/2 to 187-Aa/4 has been
marked as Exhibit-kha-23 but paper no. 190-Aa/1
was marked inadvertently as Exhibit-kha-25 and
therefore, this marking is amended and paper no.
190-Aa/1 marked as Exhibit-kha-25 is marked as
Exhibit-kha-24. D.W.-4 has proved his report paper
no. 431-kha/2 to 431-kha/17 but at the time of
examination of this witness, this paper was marked
as Exhibit-Kha-26 and therefore, this report is
marked as Exhibit-kha-25.D.W.-6 has proved
printout of Cell ID Chart paper no. 468-kha/1 to 468-
kha/82 of Bharti Airtel Ltd. which was marked as
Exhibit-kha-27 and therefore, this paper is marked
as Exhibit-kha-26. D.W.-7 has proved his
examination report paper no. 503-kha/1 to 503-
kha/13, paper no. 503-kha/14 to 503-kha/19, paper
no. 503-kha/20 to 503-kha/26, e-mail
correspondence paper nos. 506-kha/1, 506-kha/2,
506-kha/3, 506-kha/4, 506-kha/5, 506-kha/6. At the
time of examination of these witnesses the afore
stated papers have been respectively marked as
Exhibits-kha-28 to kha-36 and therefore, these
documents are respectively marked as ExhibitsPage
35

kha-27 to kha-35 in seriatim. The learned counsel for
the accused has admitted the genuineness of
serological examination report dated 17.06.2008
paper no. 165-Aa/7 to 165-Aa/9, biological
examination report dated 07.01.2010 paper no. 181-
Aa, photocopy of pathological report dated
16.05.2008 paper no. 107-Aa/34, Letter dated
09.09.2008 written by T.D. Dogra of A.I.I.M.S to Mr.
Vijay Kumar, S.P., C.B.I. paper no. 154-Aa/1,
examination report dated 15.06.2008 of C.F.S.L.,
Hyderabad paper no. 191-Aa/1 to 191-Aa/4,
enclosure No. 1 paper no. 151-Aa/9 to 151-Aa/26, email
paper no. 461-kha/1, 461-kha/2 with printout of
call details record paper nos. 461-kha/3 to 461-
kha/19, photocopy of memorandum of proceedings
paper no. 460-kha/1 to 460-kha/4, letter dated
25.07.2013 of Dr. B.K. Mohapatra to Mr. A.G.L. Kaul,
paper no. 464-kha/1, genotype plots paper no. 464-
kha/2 to 464-kha/8, letter dated 04.06.2008 of S.P.,
C.B.I.-SCR-III, New Delhi to the Director, C.F.S.L.,
New Delhi paper no. 66-ka/1 to 66-ka/13 and letter
dated 19.06.2008 of Mr. Vijay Kumar to the Director,
C.F.S.L., New Delhi paper no. 67-ka/1 to 67-ka/3, but
the learned counsel for the accused marked them
respectively as Exhibits-kha-37 to kha-47 by mistake
and therefore, nos. of Exhibits have been corrected
and marked as Exhibits-kha-36 to kha-46.
No other evidence in defence has been given.
I have heard with patience to all the
submissions good, bad, relevant, irrelevant and
indifferent of Mr. R.K. Saini, the Senior Public
Prosecutor and Mr. B.K. Singh, the Public Prosecutor
appearing for CBI as well as Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Mir
Page 36

and Mr. Satya Ketu Singh, the learned counsel for
the accused persons and perused the material on
record.
The written argument paper no. 562-kha/1 to
562-kha/212 filed on behalf of the accused has been
brought on record.
Now is the time to get down to brass tacks.
The gravamen of the argument on behalf of
prosecution is that from the evidence adduced by
the prosecution and the circumstances, it is fully
established beyond reasonable doubt that in the
intervening night of 15/16.05.2008, both the
deceased were seen alive in the company of both
the accused persons by Umesh Sharma at about
9.30 P.M. and in the morning of 16.05.2008 Ms.
Aarushi was found dead in her bed and the dead
body of the servant Hemraj was found on
17.05.2008 in the terrace of the house and there is
nothing to suggest that in the fateful night any
intruder(s) came inside the house and committed
the murders of both the deceased. It was further
added in the submissions of the learned prosecutors
that no explanation has been offered by the accused
persons as to how and under what circumstances
both the deceased died and the circumstances
unerringly point out towards the guilt of the accused
persons that they are the authors of this diabolical
crime. In furtherance of the arguments, it was also
submitted that from the evidence and material as
available on record, it is also proved that both the
accused knowing that the double murder has been
committed, caused the evidence of the commission
of the murders to disappear with the intention to
Page 37

screen themselves from legal punishment and Dr.
Rajesh Talwar also knowingly gave false information
to the police station Sector- 20, N.O.I.D.A. that the
murder of Ms. Aarushi has been committed by
Hemraj, who is absconding since night and as such
the accused persons are liable to be convicted
accordingly. The learned prosecutors in support
their arguments have placed reliance on State of
Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram AIR 2007 SC 144,
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of
Maharashtra 2007 Cr.L.J. 20 (SC), Chattar
Singh & another Vs. State of Haryana 2009
Cr.L.J. 319 (SC), Arabindra Mukherjee Vs. State
of West Bengal 2012 Cr.L.J. 1207, Dr. Sunil
Clifford Daneil Vs. State of Punjab 2012 Cr.L.J.
4657, Munish Mubar Vs. State of Haryana 2013
Cr.L.J. 56, Vivek Kalra Vs. State of Rajasthan
2013 Cr.L.J. 1524, Parkash Vs. State of
Rajasthan 2013 Cr.L.J. 2040 and Rohtash
Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2013 Cr.L.J. 3183.
The terminus a quo of Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Mir
the learned counsel for the accused is that this case
is hedged on circumstantial evidence and the theory
of grave and sudden provocation as propounded by
P.W.-38 Dr. M. S. Dahiya in his report Exhibit-ka-93
does not inspire confidence and is liable to founder.
Elaborating his submissions, it was vigorously
argued by Mr. Mir that Dr. Dahiya has inculcated this
theory in his report Exhibit-ka-93 on the basis of
information supplied to him by the investigating
agency that the blood of Hemraj was found on the
pillow of Aarushi in her bedroom; that it appears
that the accused Dr. Rajesh Talwar had seen both
Page 38

the deceased in the bedroom of Aarushi in
compromising position which incensed the accused
to commit the murders; that Dr. Dahiya has himself
mentioned in his report Exhibit-ka-93 that perusal of
photographs, CDs, postmortem examination reports
etc. cannot be a substitute for a real site visit and
hence the observation of his own report has its
limitation; that Dr. Dahiya has no where mentioned
in his report that he visited and inspected the scene
of crime on 09.10.2009 and in his cross-examination
he has admitted that no public person was
associated during the alleged inspection of the place
of occurrence and no inspection memo was
prepared; that Dr. Dahiya has stated that he visited
the place of occurrence alongwith inspector Arvind
Jaitely but inspector Jaitely has not been produced
by the prosecution to corroborate the statement of
Dr. Dahiya; that Mr. A.G.L. Kaul has himself
mentioned in his closure report Exhibit-ka-98 that no
blood of Hemraj was found on the bed-sheet and
pillow of Aarushi and that there is no evidence to
suggest that Hemraj was killed in room of Aarushi. It
has also been submitted that no blood, biological
fluid, sputum, sperm, body hair, pubic hair,
skin/flesh or any biological material belonging to
Hemraj was found in Aarushi’s room anywhere. It
was also argued that Dr. Dohre has simply
mentioned in his postmortem examination report of
Ms. Aarushi that white discharge was observed in
the vagina of Ms. Aarushi but he has not mentioned
in the postmortem examination report that opening
of vaginal cavity was prominent and the vaginal
canal was visible; that the vaginal orifice of Aarushi
Page 39

was wide and open and that vaginal canal could be
seen; that the hymen of the deceased was old, torn
and healed and these facts were not stated to the
earlier investigating officers on 18.05.2008,
18.07.2008 and 03.10.2008; P.W.-5 Dr. Sunil Kumar
Dohre has admitted on internal page no. 5 of his
cross-examination that in the postmortem
examination report it has not been mentioned that
white discharge was found in the vaginal cavity of
Aarushi and in column no. 5, 6 and 14 no
abnormality detected has been written and this
witness has also admitted in his cross-examination
that no spermatozoa was detected in the slides and
the subjective finding of Dr. Dohre is inadmissible in
evidence and as such no reliance can be placed on
the evidence of Dr. Dohre. Likewise, it has been
contended by the learned counsel for the accused
that the evidence of P.W.-36 Dr. Naresh Raj to the
effect that swelling of the pecker of Hemraj was
because either he had been murdered in the midst
of sexual intercourse or just before he was about to
have the sexual intercourse which he has stated on
the basis of marital experience is nothing but a
medical blasphemy and this part of evidence
smacks of his lack of knowledge of forensic science
and he has never stated such fact to the
investigators Anil Kumar Samania, C.B.I. Inspector
S.H. Sachan and Mr. A.G.L. Kaul under section 161
Cr.P.C. and thus in the court he has given the above
statement for the first time after making
improvements and hence no reliance can be placed
upon such testimony of Dr. Naresh Raj. It was
further contended that Dr. Naresh Raj has himself
Page 40

admitted in his evidence that he cannot produce any
authority whatsoever in support of above statement
and rather he has admitted that he agreed with the
opinion of Modi on Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic
Science and Toxicology that “from 18 to 36 hours or
48 hours after death, eyes are forced out of their
sockets, a frothy reddish fluid or mucus is forced out
of the mouth and nostrils, abdomen become greatly
distended, the penis and scrotum become
enormously swollen” and thus the evidence of Dr.
Naresh Raj does not lend any credence that penis of
Hemraj was inflated due to being engaged in sexual
intercourse and accordingly theory of grave and
sudden provocation based on nooks as projected by
the prosecution has to be rejected in toto.
The next contention put forward by the learned
counsel is that both Dr. Sunil Kumar Dohre and Dr.
Naresh Raj were the members of the expert
committee constituted by the investigating agency
and after examining number of documentary
evidence such as inquest reports, postmortem
examination reports of both the deceased, report
Exhibit-kha-17 was given by the committee in which
it was mentioned that no finding indicative of sexual
assault is mentioned in the postmortem examination
report and injuries as mentioned in the postmortem
examination reports of both the deceased could
have been possible also by a heavy weapon like
kukri having both sharp-edge and blunt portion/edge
and thus the evidence of witness Dr. Sunil Kumar
Dohre that injuries no. 1 and 3 of Ms. Aarushi may
have been caused by golf stick and injuries no. 2
and 4 may be possible due to use of surgically


GO NEXT –      1   2  3   4   5