While filing the closure report in the Aarushi-Hemraj double murder case, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) apparently played a shrewd game. As such the hearing for the closure of the case, as seemed to have been sought by the investigating agency, took a different turn in the Ghaziabad court.
Though Talwar was arrested on May 23, 2008, by the UP police after the double murder, in July 2008, the first CBI team investigating the case had requested that he be released from judicial custody. Talwar had also lodged an FIR in the murder case and had suspected Hemraj Banjade to be behind the murder of his daughter.
In its report, the CBI had requested the closure of the case, but at the same time, it had pointed fingers at the involvement of Aarushi’s parents in the double murder.
During the initial hearings on the final report, the CBI counsels referred to Dr Rajesh Talwar as “technically an accused in the case” and “no more a complainant in the case”. They also said that since he was not discharged or acquitted by the court, his statement would continue to be taken as that of an accused.
During the hearings, the CBI counsels had strongly objected when the Talwars’ lawyers demanded a copy of the final report along with the annexure documents, which held important case findings, submitted by the CBI.
The Talwars’ lawyers told Hindustan Times that the CBI had, in fact, filed a chargesheet disguised as a final report and that they were shocked at their versions during the hearings.
“We were surprised at the way they fought the final report issue in the court. It seemed that they never wanted the case to be closed even after listing some drawbacks in their findings,” Satish Tamta, Talwars’ lawyer, said.
Speaking to CBI sources and some legal experts, Hindustan Times learnt that the CBI team had enough material with them to proceed in the case, but had wanted the court to take the final call.
“They fought smartly and preferred not to repeat the mistakes committed by the UP police and filed a final report full of circumstantial evidence based on their findings. This could have been part of a strategy due to the pressures in the case,” a legal expert said.
“Even major evidences were already feared tampered with. Filing a chargesheet would have meant handing all the case-related documents to those chargesheeted,” he added.
Although, the court did hand over a 31-page copy of the report to Talwar, it later denied them the crucial annexure document which included statement of witnesses, case diary, forensic reports and other vital case investigations.
Based on the same final report, case diaries and witnesses’ statements, the court held Dr Rajesh Talwar and Dr Nupur Talwar an accused for murder.