Aarushi case: Court warns Talwars as witness waits | india | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Apr 25, 2017-Tuesday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Aarushi case: Court warns Talwars as witness waits

india Updated: Aug 17, 2012 08:55 IST
Peeyush Khandelwal

A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) judge on Thursday issued a warning to Nupur and Rajesh Talwar after their lawyers failed to cross-examine forensic expert BK Mahapatra in the Aarushi-Hemraj double murder case trial in Ghaziabad.

As Mahapatra was kept waiting the whole day, Judge S Lal said a “delaying tactic was being adopted”.

Stating that the witness could not be left in the lurch, he said that a “last opportunity” would be given to the defence to cross-examine him on August 21. The order came after the Talwars’ lawyers requested the court to defer Mahapatra’s cross-examination.

They said the CBI should first produce 13 witnesses mentioned before the Supreme Court on August 13 during the hearing on Nupur Talwar’s bail application.

On August 13, the CBI had challenged Nupur Talwar’s bail application on the grounds that 13 material witnesses might be influenced if she was let off.

Adjourning the hearing till September 17, the apex court had asked the CBI to speed up the examination of the 13 witnesses.

Mahapatra’s examination started since July 31 and ended on August 14, after which the Talwars’ counsels were supposed to cross-examine him.

CBI special public prosecutor RK Saini said the defence was trying to “to delay the trial process.” “Once his cross-examination is complete, we will expedite the examination of 13 witnesses as mentioned before the SC. The accused are trying to make grounds for getting bail by making a false premise that we are not examining 13 witnesses,” Saini said.

Although three of Talwars’ lawyers were present at the Ghaziabad court, they refused to initiate the cross-examination, saying they were not “acquainted with the said branch of science (forensics)”.

They said that only one of their lawyers, GP Thareja, would be able to cross-examine the witness but he was not available.