Aarushi Murder Case: A Tale of Two Courts and the CBI

Two extreme judgments has made the Aarushi murder case the whodunnit of the century.

(Photo: Harsh Sahani/The Quint)

The unsolved double murder of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj bears testimony to the incompetence of the investigative agencies and, as the Allahabad High Court order confirmed, the bias of the Judiciary.

The Allahabad High Court observed that the trial court had grounded the genesis of the offence “on the fact that the deceased Hemraj and Aarushi were seen by Dr Rajesh Talwar in flagrante. And thereafter like a film director, the trial judge has tried to thrust coherence amongst facts inalienably scattered here and there but not giving any coherence to the idea as to what in fact happened.”

Reversing the trial court’s 2013 judgment, Justice Balakrishnan Narayanan and Justice Arvind Kumar Mishra acquitted Rajesh and Nupur Talwar. But it must be noted that the High Court did not re-try the case. Its order is based on the same evidence presented before the trial court. And yet, the two judgments could not be more contradictory. The Quint examines how the two courts chose to read the CBI’s closure report and came to two completely different verdicts.

How Did the Court Interpret 'Motive'?

From attempt to murder and rape to honour killing – over nine years, the motive behind the double-murder kept changing.

Probe 1

The UP Police first arrested Dr Rajesh Talwar on the grounds that he killed his daughter accidently, in a drunk fit of rage, when he saw Aarushi and Hemraj in a compromising position. The police’s theory was that Dr Talwar saw them together, aimed a golf club at Hemraj and hit his daughter’s head and killed her instead. And then, he went after the domestic help.

Probe 2

The first Central Bureau of Investigation team that took over the case after the UP Police however, turned their focus on Hemraj’s three other friends – Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal. During their Narco tests, all three confessed to killing Aarushi and Hemraj, but the doctors at Bengaluru’s Central Forensic Science Laboratory were accused of asking leading questions. Also, the tape recordings of the narco tests, which were infamously leaked to the media, are not admissible in court.

Probe 3

The second CBI team that probed the case, however, remained silent on the motive. In its closure report, it said – “There is an absence of a clear cut motive and incomplete understanding of the sequence of events and non-recovery of one weapon of offence and their link to either the servants or the parents.”

Notably, the second CBI team dismissed the theory that Aarushi and Hemraj had been found in a compromising position that enraged the 14 year-old’s father.

(Photo: The Quint)

Verdict 1

The CBI Court in Ghaziabad completely dismissed the CBI’s closure report and ordered a trial against Aarushi’s parents. Special Judicial Magistrate Preeti Singh, however, came down heavily on the CBI for filing a closure report and ordered a re-trial. In its 2013 judgment, the court took cognizance of a report prepared by Dr BK Mahapatra on the blood stains found on Aarushi’s pillow.

(Photo: The Quint)

Verdict 2

The Allahabad High Court however, said there wasn’t an iota of evidence on record that even remotely suggested that there was any sexual activity between the two deceased or that Hemraj was assaulted in Aarushi’s bedroom. The High Court took into consideration, the report, prepared by Dr Bhibha Rani, director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory in New Delhi.

(Photo: The Quint)

Also read: Where Did the CBI Go Wrong In Their Case Against the Talwars?

What Did the Court Say About the Murder Weapon?

Knife, hammer, golf Club, a khukri and a scalpel – Which of these were used to kill Aarushi and Hemraj?

Probe 1

The UP Police claimed that the two were killed with a hammer and then a knife.

Probe 2

The CBI team that first probed the case, trashed the UP Police investigation and suggested that a khukri was used by the Nepalese men – Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal – to commit the murders. Incidentally, a khukri is a Nepalese knife.

Probe 3

The second CBI team, however, claimed that a golf club and surgical scalpels were used to killed Aarushi and Hemraj. In doing so, they were hinting at the parents’ involvement. In its closure report, the CBI said – “The surgical cuts on the necks of both victims was the work of professional, trained experts. This could only be the parents.” But the probe agency failed to recover the said deadly weapons.

The closure report, read more like a chargesheet against the parents, pointing the needle of suspicion towards them, but stopping short of directly accusing them.

(Photo: The Quint)

Verdict 1

On the non-recovery of the murder weapons the trial court said, “From the evidence it is proved that the accused persons disposed of/destroyed the scalpel, the blood-stained clothes worn by them during the commission of the offence… secretly hid the murder weapon ­– one golf stick, in the loft.”

Verdict 2

The High Court, on the other hand, observed that the prosecution had failed to prove that the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased were caused by a golf club which belonged to Aarushi’s father, Dr Rajesh Talwar.

The High Court said the entire theory behind the crime weapons being a golf club and surgical scalpel had been propounded by Dr MS Dahiya – a forensic expert – on the basis of absolutely wrongful information supplied to him by AGL Kaul, the investigating officer of the case. The court said the theory was not supported by any material on the record and was liable to be rejected outright.

Also read: Trial Judge “Unmindful of Law”: HC Tears Apart Talwars’ Conviction

What Did the Court Say About the Entry of an Outsider?

Perhaps one of the only facts of the case that all the three investigating teams agreed on – that there was no evidence to suggest a forced entry or exit from the house where the murders were committed?

Probe 1

The UP Police suggested that since only two of the four occupants of the locked house were alive, they were liable to explain the murders.

Probe 2

The first CBI team said that there could’ve been a “friendly entry” by Hemraj’s three Nepalese friends – Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal.

Probe 3

The second CBI team also suggested that the two people who survived the night, should explain the murders. In its closure report, the probe agency ruled out the possibility of the involvement of an outsider on the grounds that an intruder would not be bothered to dress the crime scene or hide the dead body on the terrace.

Verdict 1

Ruling on the “no outsider could’ve done it” theory, the trial court in Ghaziabad ruled that, no outsider assassin would’ve been bothered to carry Hemraj’s body to the terrace, and that an outsider would not have the keys to Aarushi’s bedroom or the keys to the terrace. The trial court said:

“Had both the deceased been murdered by an outsider then hearing of the screeches of victims may have certainly awakened the accused persons even if they could be in deep slumber in the adjoining room and the air-conditioner of their room was on as sound travels with more intensity in the night.”

Verdict 2

That the Talwar household was locked from the inside is an established fact. But did someone also lock the latch from outside as well? This remains unclear. Bharati Mandal, the domestic help who cleaned the house every morning, had first said that the house had been locked from outside, which is why Nupur Talwar threw the keys for her from the balcony. When she reached the flat, she found that the outermost door was open. Later, Bharti Mandal changed her statement and claimed she was not sure if the outermost gate was in fact open from the outside.

The Allahabad High Court acknowledged this disconnect in the sequence of events.

Also watch: First Time in 9 Years, We’ll Celebrate Diwali: Aarushi’s Granddad

What About the Internet Router With a Mind of Its Own?

The Internet Router at the Talwar residence was examined to determine when it was in use. This, the CBI claimed it did, to understand at what time the dentist couple was awake and at what time were they inactive.

What the CBI Said

The CBI in its closure report claimed that the internet router was switched on and off several times on the night of the murders.

A day later, when the cops were inside the house, the router was once again, found to be switching off and on.

This is possible, only if someone manually flicks the switch, or during power cuts.

The CBI, in its closure report, said that their experts were “unable to explain the activity of the router satisfactorily” and that it made this piece of evidence “not fully reliable.” The CBI also clarified that there were no power cuts on the night of the murder.

Verdict 1

But the trial court chose to disregard the CBI’s dismissal of the router activity as evidence and said that since the Talwars were proficient in using the internet, they may have manually switched the router off and on to mislead the investigating agencies.

“It should be borne in mind that both the accused are acquainted with the internet functioning and therefore, they may have continued with the start and stop activity of internet router till 13:11:44 hours on 16.05.2008 with intent to confuse and camouflage the investigating agency as also to create evidence in their flavour.”

Verdict 2

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the router log and blamed the CBI for not providing sufficient material to the experts to build a conclusive report.

(Photo: The Quint)

Was the Crime Scene Dressed Up?

What the CBI Said

According to the police and CBI teams, the crime scene was heavily dressed up. The probe agency’s logic was that no outsider would make an effort to dress up the crime scene after committing the murders.

The CBI listed how this was done –

1. “Aarushi was found covered with a white bed sheet and her bed linen was undisturbed”
2. “Hemraj was dragged to the corner of the terrace and covered with the cooler panel”
3. “The entire data of Aarushi’s phone was deleted, which a criminal might not do”

In its closure report, the CBI said:

Verdict 1

The trial court in its verdict said that “an outsider killer after committing the crime will not waste his time dressing-up the bed-sheet, arranging toys and pillow in proper order in the bed sheet, covering the dead body of Ms Aarushi in a flannel blanket and cleaning the private parts of Ms Aarushi, as his top priority would be to escape away immediately.”

Verdict 2

The Allahabad High Court does not delve into the dressing up of the room in detail.

The court, however, noted that Aarushi’s room was cleaned in the absence of the appellants after they had left for the crematorium for performing the last rites of their daughter by Umesh Sharma (Talwars’ driver) in the presence of a large number of policemen.

What Was Said About the Involvement of the Domestic Help?

Were Hemraj's friends – Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal Involved? While Hemraj was the stay-at-home domestic help, Krishna was the compounder at Dr Talwar's clinic. Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal worked at other homes, in Noida.

Probe 1

The scope of UP Police’s investigation was limited to the Talwars’ involvement.

Probe 2

The CBI team that first investigated the case completely ruled out the parents’ involvement and came out with a different theory that involved the three men - Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal.

Probe 3

The second CBI team gave a clean chit to the help. According to a former CBI Director, the Narco test had glaring loopholes in the manner it was conducted on the servants. The doctors not only asked leading questions but also forced the servants to confess to the crime.

On the other hand, the CBI could not gather conclusive evidence to prove the Talwars’ involvement in the case. In its closure report the CBI said:

There is no evidence against the servants except the Narco Test which was not reliable.

Verdict 1

The trial court was on the same page with the second CBI team on the servants’ involvement theory. The court said, “ It is not possible at all that in the midnight around 12:00 o’clock Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal will come to the room of Hemraj and have liquor drinks.”

Verdict 2

But the High Court raised questions on the CBI’s investigation and made several remarks pertaining to a pillow cover seized from Krishna’s room. Dr Talwar’s compounder lived at a distance from the Talwar residence.

This pillow cover was sent to the forensics science lab in Hyderabad. A blood stain, belonging to Hemraj was found on Krishna’s pillow cover, indicating that Krishna was present at the scene of murder.

The Allahabad High Court gave considerable importance to this piece of evidence.

The High Court said:

We repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the CBI as to what led AGL Kaul (CBI Investigating Officer) to doubt the correctness of the finding by CDFD Hyderabad in its report... the purple colour pillow cover seized from Krishna’s home... but the learned counsel for the CBI failed to come up with any satisfactory reply.

Also read: To Punish or Not, That is The Question After Aarushi Verdict

(Breathe In, Breathe Out: Are you finding it tough to breathe polluted air? Join hands with FIT in partnership with #MyRightToBreathe to find a solution to pollution. Send in your suggestions to [e-mail] or WhatsApp @ [phone])