No outsider could have been involved, says CBI | india | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Sep 21, 2017-Thursday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

No outsider could have been involved, says CBI

During recent arguments over the framing of charges at the Ghaziabad sessions court, the CBI had contended that no outsider was involved in the Aarushi-Hemraj murders, and only four people were present inside the flat on the intervening night of May 15 and 16, 2008. Video

india Updated: May 24, 2012 23:49 IST
Peeyush Khandelwal

During recent arguments over the framing of charges at the Ghaziabad sessions court, the CBI had contended that no outsider was involved in the Aarushi-Hemraj murders, and only four people were present inside the flat on the intervening night of May 15 and 16, 2008.

CBI’s senior public prosecutor, RK Saini, asserted that Hemraj’s body was dragged to the flat’s terrace and the door locked. He stated that no outsider would have make the effort of heavily dressing up the scene of crime or would have consumed liquor after committing the murders, especially when the parents were sleeping inside the same house. The CBI named a golf stick as one of the murder-weapons.

The agency also brought up some suspicious internet-router activity that took place late at night while the router was placed in Aarushi’s room. The murders, as per CBI’s closure-report, were committed between 12 pm and 1am on the intervening night of May 15 and 16, 2008.

CBI counsels indicated that the motive behind the murder could be made out from the post-mortem reports. CBI requested the court to charge the dentist couple with murder and destruction of evidence and also requested for an additional charge against Dr Rajesh Talwar for misleading investigations and lodging a misleading FIR against domestic help Hemraj.

Saini said that it was up to the two accused to prove their innocence under section 106 of the Evidence Act, by telling them who committed the murders when no outside entry was indicated.

The couple’s lawyers had refuted CBI’s arguments and said that there was no direct-evidence against their clients and the entire chain of circumstantial-evidence was not linked to each other.

The lawyers had also said that the couple could not have destroyed the evidence as the UP police and administrative officials had reached their residence after Aarushi’s murder was revealed.

The lawyers also denied the CBI allegations of the murders being committed in a fit of rage, saying that a wife would stop her husband from doing so. They also pointed out that the murder-weapon could be a khukri, which is commonly used by Nepalis and not a golf-stick as indicated by the CBI.

Talwars’ lawyer Satyaketu Singh also denied the CBI’s claim that Hemraj was killed inside Aarushi’s room, saying that he was killed on the terrace. No marks suggesting he was dragged were found on Hemraj’s body, he had stated.

Denying CBI’s contention that the Talwars killed the victims, their lawyers said that the accused would have also suffered injuries, as Aarushi and Hemraj would have retaliated.