Talwars want fresh probe in case
Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, who are facing trial court summons in the double-murder case of their daughter Aarushi and servant Hemraj, demanded another fresh probe against Hemraj’s friends. Bhadra Sinha reports.delhi Updated: Apr 26, 2011 00:39 IST
Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, who are facing trial court summons in the double-murder case of their daughter Aarushi and servant Hemraj, demanded another fresh probe against Hemraj’s friends.
Although Talwars' counsel argued for a short while before the court fixed July 19 to hear the matter at length, his arguments focused more on the evidence against the three persons who were arrested by the CBI after it took over the probe. The CBI had arrested Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal but released them on bail because CBI failed to file a chargesheet within stipulated time.
The dentist couple were challenging in Supreme Court the special CBI court's summons seeking their presence before it in Ghaziabad. The special magistrate had refused to accept the agency's closure report which said there was not enough evidence against the Talwars.
The Talwars also tried to revive the two-weapon theory and said there were discrepancies in the two forensic reports on the weapon used to slit the throats of Aarushi and Hemraj.
Their lawyer claimed the first report indicated the murder took place with a khukri, while the subsequent report filed along with the agency's closure report stated the slitting was done with a clinical instrument.
The advocate also claimed the magistrate's order came due to media pressure and though the CBI had claimed to have filed a closure report, it had virtually invited the trial court to take cognisance.
Following this submission, the apex court questioned the CBI on its change of stand. "Where from the CBI has become active? Pages after pages you have filed in the trial court submitting that there is nothing against them. Now how could you assume that there is evidence against them," the apex court asked solicitor general Gopal Subramaniam.
The solicitor general, however, defended the summons on the ground that the trial court had examined the statement of police recorded under Section 161 and other relevant materials.