E-Paper
Aarushi case: Talwars question CBI findings
Lawyers of Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, accused in the murders of teenager Aarushi Talwar and domestic worker Hemraj, have begun their final arguments in the case.
Lawyers of Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, accused in the murders of teenager Aarushi Talwar and domestic worker Hemraj, have begun their final arguments in the case.
The CBI’s public prosecutors had finished presenting their case against the teenager’s parents, the Talwars, in a Ghaziabad court last week.
On Thursday, the defence lawyers questioned the “crime scene re-enactment” report prepared by forensic expert Dr Mohinder Singh Dahiya.
Lawyer Tanvir Ahmed Mir said in the court that the report was prepared only on the basis of information provided by the investigating officer, 14 photographs taken from the scene of crime and post-mortem reports of both victims prepared by Dr Sunil Dohre and Dr Naresh Raj.
Mir also said that the report, prepared on October 26, 2009, had claimed that two blood splodges, one belonging to Aarushi and the other to Hemraj, were found on a wall of her room.
“The report raises questions over the CBI’s claims of presence of Hemraj in Aarushi’s room when there was no presence of any blood, hair, biological fluid, fingerprints or sputum in the room,” Mir said before the court.
“In its closure report, the CBI had mentioned that no blood of Hemraj was found on her bed sheet and pillow. The agency said there was no evidence to prove that Hemraj was killed in Aarushi’s room,” Mir added.
In his cross examination before the court, Dahiya — director of the Institute of Forensic Science (Gujarat Forensic Science University, Gandhi Nagar) and deputy director, Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhi Nagar — had said both victims were attacked in Aarushi’s room. He said the throat of both victims were slashed when they were either dead or their pulse was feeble.
Mir came down heavily on Aarushi’s post-mortem report prepared by Dr Sunil Dohre and told the court that the doctor did not mention anything extraordinary about victim’s private parts in the first instance.
“He did not mention anything extraordinary in three statements given in 2008. He also did not say anything extraordinary in a report of an expert committee in September 2008,” Mir stated. “But he did mention the ‘prominent opening’ in statements given to the case investigating officer in September 2009,” Mir added.
The lawyer said the statement given by Dr Naresh Raj about Hemraj’s swollen private part was “nothing less than a medical blasphemy.”
The hearing will continue on Friday.
