Aarushi case: post-mortem reports added to mystery

  • Peeyush Khandelwal, Hindustan Times, Ghaziabad
  • |
  • Updated: Nov 25, 2013 18:58 IST

The double murder case took a dramatic turn after the special investigation team (SIT) of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) recorded statements of the two doctors who conducted the post-mortems on the bodies of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj.

The doctors told the court that a golf club and a scalpel could have been the murder weapons.

The investigating officer, AGL Kaul, told the court that Nupur had cleaned up her daughter's body and put the clothes back on, and a wet, circular mark was had formed under it. The CBI maintained that the scene of crime had been found dressed up.

The wet circular area had no presence of urine or DNA. BK Mahapatra, a forensic expert from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, told the court: "There was no biological fluid or stain. It could have been some other liquid."

Dr Sunil Dohre, who conducted Aarushi's post-mortem on May 16, 2008, spoke in the court in July 2012 of a "prominent opening" of her private parts. He later said these were his "subjective findings".

The testimony was crucial to the CBI's case as they maintained that the body had been cleaned after the murders. The SIT relied on a photograph of the scene of crime which showed a wet circular area under her body on the bed.

Dr Dohre made his revelations in his statements given to the SIT investigators on September 30, 2009, and also on May 28, 2010. The findings were not probed by the first team of the CBI which recorded the doctor's statement on July 18, 2008. Dr Dohre did mention about the "dilation" of body parts in statements given on October 3, 2008, but the investigators failed to substantiate.

There was even no mention of the issue in the post-mortem report prepared by the doctor who wrote "NAD (no abnormality detected)" in the section on the teenager's private parts. He did mention the presence of a whitish discharge.

When cross-examined by defence lawyers, Dr Dohre said that these were his "subjective findings".

Likewise, Dr Naresh Raj, who conducted Hemraj's post-mortem, talked about the victim's swollen private part.

The doctors told the court that blunt injuries on the victims were possible using weapons such as golf clubs, and the throats could be slit with a sharp surgical instrument.

A golf club and a surgical scalpel were touted as the two murder weapons by the CBI. The agency, however, did not recover a scalpel, though it claimed to have found a golf club.

As parts of an AIIMS committee, the doctors had said that the injuries were possible using a khukri.

Dr Dohre told the court: "I was shown only one khukri by the CBI and no other weapon was shown." Later, in his statements to Kaul on October 12, 2009, Dr Raj said Hemraj's injury was "caused by a sharp-edged light surgical" instrument and not possible with a khukri.

The doctors came under the scanner of the defence lawyers who said their statements had no medical basis and "considerable improvements had been made to support the CBI theory".

Defence lawyer Tanvir Ahmed Mir requested the court to "pass necessary strictures" against the two doctors, irrespective of the outcome of the case.


also read

Many legal experts point to contradictions in order, some say it’s for H...

blog comments powered by Disqus