A CBI court in Ghaziabad on Wednesday concluded arguments on the framing of charges against Rajesh and Nupur Talwar in the murders of their daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj.
The lawyer for the Talwars concluded arguments and denied the probe agency’s allegations which pointed the finger of suspicion in the case at the Talwars. The court is likely to pronounce its order on Thursday.
The couple’s lawyer Satyaketu Singh countered the the CBI’s arguments and said the murders could be the job of an outsider who had gained entry into the house.
He argued that acquaintances of Hemraj may have gained entry into the house and later killed Aarushi when she tried to resist their intentions. Later, they may have killed Hemraj too, after he resisted Aarushi’s murder, Singh said.
He also denied the CBI’s argument that the murder weapon was a golf stick. The CBI on Wednesday had said the injury marks of the two victims proved the use of a golf stick. In his arguments, Singh said that it was not possible to use a stick inside Aarushi’s room which had little space and was cluttered, with a bed, a cupboard, a computer table and other accessories.
The stick could have inflicted only a small injury of around 2cm and not bigger injury marks as claimed by the CBI, he added.
He added that the possible murder weapon could be a “khukri”, which could have been used to inflict injury because of its weight, and later to slash throats of the victims with its sharp edge. Singh also pointed to a report by a panel of doctors who pointed towards a “khukri”-like weapon.
Over the destruction of evidence, the lawyer said that the Talwars could have disposed of Hemraj’s body, as Nupur’s car was available and Rajesh’s car was parked at the house of his in-laws’ in the same housing society.
He further said Hemraj’s cell phone location was found to be somewhere in Punjab while the dentist couple were present at their house after murders. It was not possible for them to move to Punjab to throw away Hemraj’s mobile, he argued. He also refuted the circumstantial evidence against the dentist couple, saying the chain of events was not linked.
Summing up the arguments on Wednesday, the CBI’s senior public prosecutor RK Saini said arguments presented by the defence lawyers were the matter of trial and the examination of evidence could not be done at this stage. He also said that the accused could not question the Ghaziabad magistrate’s February 2011 summon orders. As per “doctrine of merger”, the magistrate’s orders got merged with Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court orders.
The Talwars had previously challenged magistrate’s summon orders at the high court and also at the Supreme Court, but failed to get relief. Nupur’s review petition is pending at the Supreme Court.