The Ghaziabad sessions court on Saturday permitted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to submit 10 additional sets of documents in the Aarushi-Hemraj double-murder case.
In the last hearing, the investigating agency and defence lawyers representing accused Rajesh Talwar and Nupur Talwar had argued over placing the documents on record. The Talwars' had strongly opposed the CBI's petition.
Allowing the CBI plea, the court said: "If some mistake is committed in not providing the relevant documents at the time of submitting the report or chargesheet, it is always open to the investigating officer to produce the same with the permission of the court."
Stating that the "ultimate goal is the discovery of truth," the court said that "the accused in this case could not show that they shall be prejudiced in any way in their defence and if documents are admitted on record, they will suffer any disability or detriment in the protection available to them under the Indian criminal jurisprudence".The defence also got a set of these documents. "We will take a call order only after we receive the certified copies," Talwars' lawyer Manoj Shishodia said.
He said the documents includes reports related to the seizure-memo of a Nokia N-72 mobile phone in 2009, start-stop activity report of the internet router, CDs containing details of SIM cards of mobiles, details of laptops, digital camera, cell phone seized after the crime, computer records, pictures, call detail records and Orkut profile details.
One of the key documents is related to a clarification sent by the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD) in Hyderabad to the CBI regarding a 'pillow cover' and a 'pillow with cover'.
The defence maintains that the pillow cover, recovered from the room of previous suspect Krishna Thadarai, was found positive for Hemraj's DNA.
On the other hand, the CBI maintains the numbers of the two exhibits were interchanged, which the CDFD later clarified through a letter that the CBI wants to place on record.
Referring to the CDFD letter, the court said, "it would be too early to speculate that the letter or any other document filed with the list has been manufactured…"