Arguments vs counter arguments in Aarushi-Hemraj case

  • HT correspondent, Hindustan Times, Ghaziabad
  • |
  • Updated: Dec 25, 2013 11:53 IST
The verdict in the Aarushi-Hemraj double murder case stirred quite a controversy as it didn't exactly solve the mysteries that enveloped the case. From the arguments to the loopholes, Hindustan Times closely tracked the case.

It’s the CBI’s word against the Talwars’ in the Aarushi-Hemraj murder case. Experts say the prosecution’s case largely rests on circumstantial evidence. 
Locked door faked?


Talwars pretended they were locked in. When maid Bharti arrived the following, she pushed the outer grille door but it didn’t open. But when she tried the second time, after fetching the keys to the inner that were thrown outside by Nupur, the opened with ease. CBI claims Nupur opened the door using another door from Hemraj’s room. 


The defence claimed Bharti was tutored and she never stated the condition of the gates to any previous investigators. Other defence witnesses, Umesh and Vikas Sethi, stated that the door had to be pushed hard to open.

The suspect golf club: lost and found


One of the two golf clubs kept in Hemraj’s room by driver Umesh, went missing. Over a year later, it emerged that Ajay Chadha, an old friend of Rajesh’s, and Nupur had found it from a loft. CBI claims Ajay sent an email to CBI on June 1, 2010 informing them about the discovery. CBI later linked this club to the injuries on the victims.

Blunt injuries were also possible through a weapon like ‘Khukhri’ (a Nepali knife), as opined by two post mortem doctors previously. CBI allegedly tampered with the golf-club set and no email was sent on behalf of Rajesh to CBI. Driver Umesh denied identified that those were the clubs he had kept in Hemraj’s room.

Crime scene dressed up


The crime scene was scrubbed to remove traces of blood on the night of and the day after the incident. Aarushi’s body too was cleaned, as apparent by a circular wet spot seen in one of the photographs of crime scene. Toys kept over her bed had no blood stains but there were some on the wall behind the bed. Body was found covered with a White sheet.


Aarushi’s room was cleaned in police presence. Scene of crime was never sealed. The wet circular mark on bed-sheet was insignificant since it had no urine or any other biological fluid as per forensic reports. The toys were in the same order as they were the night before, as seen in the photographs taken by Aarushi from her new camera.

Couple dragged Hemraj to terrace


Hemraj was attacked inside Aarushi’s room and then taken to terrace, wrapped in a bed-sheet. This was apparent from the presence of blood-marks/faint stains on the stairs leading to terrace.

No evidence of Hemraj being in Aarushi’s room. Also, as many as seven people did not observe any stains on the stairs. Had Hemraj been attacked inside the flat, blood would have splattered at many places. Cooler-panel was never seized.

Mystery of the scotch bottle


A bottle of Ballentine scotch had blood of both victims and had been handled by killers inside the flat. No outsider would return (after killing Hemraj on the terrace) and have a drink. There was either a use of gloves or an attempt to wipe the prints.

There was a discrepancy in forensics reports over the blood. No finger prints or DNA of either Rajesh or Nupur were found over the bottles.

Who had Aarushi’s room’s keys?


The CBI said that Aarushi’s room was open when murder took place and keys of her room remained in custody of her parents. According to investigation officer on scene, Noida SP Mahesh Mishra, the parents did not hand over the keys during questioning.


Keys of Aarushi’s room were left inadvertently over the door-lock. Wrong statements given by Mishra regarding keys.

False FIRs lodged


Rajesh lodged a false FIR since sentences in the report pertaining to Hemraj were written in the past tense

The FIR contents were dictated by police officers and everyone initially suspected Hemraj

Strings pulled


Rajesh Talwar refused to identify Hemraj’s body and he called a former UP police official to get the terrace door opened up on May 17, 2008. The detection of Hemraj’s body was not a mere co-incidence and former UP cop was “used” to get the body recovered.

Noida cops made material improvements in their court testimonies over and above what they stated in their statements to CBI. Allegation that defendants refused or were reluctant to identify the body of Hemraj was not noted in the panchnama. Police did a shoddy job. They didn’t seal scene of crime, did not call sniffer dogs and did not even seize the cooler panel that was said to have been put over Hemraj’s body.

also read

Aarushi-Hemraj case

Parents guilty of killing Aarushi, rules court; Talwars to appeal in HC

blog comments powered by Disqus