Talwars’ maid tutored, claim defence lawyer
One of the key prosecution witness in the Aarushi-Hemraj murder case, the then domestic help of the Talwar family, Bharti, on Tuesday told a Ghaziabad court during her cross-examination that she was called for the first time to give statements before the court, Peeyush Khandelwal reports.Updated: Sep 05, 2012 02:03 IST
One of the key prosecution witness in the Aarushi-Hemraj murder case, the then domestic help of the Talwar family, Bharti, on Tuesday told a Ghaziabad court during her cross-examination that she was called for the first time to give statements before the court. She said she had not received any summons.
She denied that she had given any wrong statements under pressure from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
But at the same time she said, "Jo samjhaya gaya wahi bayan de rahi hu (I am saying whatever I was explained)."
Bharti, 35, had joined the Talwars' a week before the double murders.Two of her statements were recorded under CrPC section 161 in June 2008.
On Monday, Bharti said how she opened the outer grille door of the Talwars' residence on May 16, 2008.
She also narrated the reactions of Nupur and Rajesh Talwar when she was called inside the flat to look at Aarushi's body.
With her testimony, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) wanted to prove no intruders were involved and tried explain the position of the doors to the flat when Bharti arrived on May 16, 2008.
During Tuesday's cross-examination, Bharti told the court that she gave statements before the court for the first time on Monday.
Defence lawyer Manoj Shishodia claimed Bharti "was tutored by the CBI and not a trustworthy witness".
The defence also claimed that Bharti never stated anything before the CBI and none of her statements were recorded earlier.
They also alleged that that during lunch break, Bharti was whisked away by the CBI. Reacting to the defence claims, CBI special public prosecutor RK Saini said Bharti stood by her statements given before the court during her examination on Monday.
Saini said she being a prosecution witness was accompanied by a woman constable to the washroom during lunch on Tuesday.
Saini said her summons was received by her brother-in-law as she was out for work.
"She is uneducated and may not have understood technical language. Improvements can always be done on CrPC 161 statements. She has not changed her story and stood by her Monday's statements," Saini added.