CBI can't explain two crucial clues in Aarushi case
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which probed the May 2008 murder of Class 9 student Aarushi Talwar and domestic help Hemraj Banjade, could not explain the presence of a few key crime-scene evidence, that indicated the involvement of suspects yet to be identified by the agency. Abhishek Sharan reports.delhi Updated: Jan 05, 2011 01:36 IST
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which probed the May 2008 murder of Class 9 student Aarushi Talwar and domestic help Hemraj Banjade, could not explain the presence of a few key crime-scene evidence, that indicated the involvement of suspects yet to be identified by the agency.
Among the crucial evidence — gathered from flat number L 32 at Jalvayu Vihar in Noida’s Sector 25 where the double murders occurred — that the CBI could not explain were two fingerprints, which did match with the case suspects.
“The two fingerprints were found on a Ballantine scotch bottle, which also bore the bloodstains of Aarushi and Banjade, and was lying without any glass on the dining table inside the flat,” according to a CBI source who requested anonymity.
“In spite of best efforts, the fingerprint/s could not be identified,” said the CBI source. “The presence of Aarushi’s and Hemraj’s bloodstains on the bottle, establishes its linkage with the crime.”
The fingerprints did not match with any suspects in the agency’s 30-month-old probe. Twenty-four other fingerprints lifted by the police's investigators got wasted due to the alleged employment of wrong procedures.
The CBI investigating team could not also find explain as to how and why Banjade's Tata Indicom mobile phone set landed up at an undisclosed location in Punjab after the murders.
"Hemraj's phone was found to be active in Punjab though suspects Krishna and Rajkumar had claimed they had destroyed it during their narco analysis tests. A day after the crime, this phone was found to be active in sector 25 of Noida. It is a mystery still as to who took it to Punjab though it seems he/she could be connected to the crime,” said the source.
Further, the CBI could not find one of the two suspected crime weapons, a sharp-edged weapon and a heavy, blunt object. Though the CBI suspected a golf stick to be one of the crime weapons, it could not establish whether a surgical instrument or a khukri was used and could recover neither.
After thorough investigation, probe agency faltered at end
The Central Bureau of Investigation seemed to have conducted a thorough investigation before it decided to file a closure-report, which was submitted before a Ghaziabad court on 29 December, 2010.
The report drew a blank over its conclusion on finding the real culprits behind the murders of Aarushi Talwar and domestic-help Hmeraj Banjade.
On Monday, the CBI Special Judicial Magistrate Priti Singh had slammed the CBI for not submitting the annexure-documents and case-diaries before the court along with the 31-page closure-report. The court has ordered the investigation agency to submit the case-related documents on on 7 January.
The crucial and controversial 31-page closure-report, is also accompanied by annexure stating 140 witnesses, 101 detailed documents and 93 important articles, which were gathered and used during the two and half years investigations and running into hundreds of pages.
Starting from minute articles like hair-bands, toothbrushes to various forensic and scientific reports, the CBI seemed to have left no stone unturned in gathering the required evidence. It also gathered several important evidences just before filing of the closure-report.
On 15 December, 2010, just before the filing of the report, two of Dr Rajesh Talwar’s friends —Dr Rajiv Kochar and Dr Rajiv Kumar — deposed before a magistrate for their 11-page statements, which are admissible if a trial is ordered.
In the closure-report, these two were stated to have reached Talwar’s residence after Aarushi’s body was sent for post-mortem and had “stumbled upon some blood stains on the handle of terrace door, which was locked. They had also seen some wiped blood stains on the upper stair-case.”