Thursday, 29 January 2015

The Toughest Case Cracked by CBI!

Noida Double Murder Case

In May 2008, the nation was shocked with the sensational double murders in Noida. The victims were Arushi Talwar and  Hemraj Banjade. Initially, there was no clarity about the motive or the perpetrator of this ghastly crime. After a lengthy investigation which spanned close to 6 years, the CBI based on circumstantial evidence established that the parents of Aarushi Talwar, Rajesh Talwar and Nupur Talwar were the perpetrators of this crime. Based on CBI's finding's, on 25 November 2013, a special CBI court held Rajesh and Nupur Talwar guilty for the two murders.

The evidence based on which the conviction was made is quoted below -

"From the evidence as tendered by the prosecution in form of oral and  documentary evidence this court reaches to the irresistible and  impeccable conclusion that only the accused persons are responsible for  committing this ghastly crime as the following circumstances unerringly  point towards the hypothesis of guilt of the accused," the 210-page  order said while pointing out 26 circumstances leading to the  conviction.

1. That on the fateful night of May 15 and 16, 2008 both the  accused were last seen with both the deceased in Flat No. L-32, Jalvayu  Vihar at about 9.30 P.M. By Umesh Sharma, the driver of Rajesh Talwar;

2. That on the morning of May 16, 2008 at about 6.00 A.M. Aarushi  was found murdered in her bed-room which was adjacent to the bedroom of  the accused and there was only partition wall between two bed-rooms;

3. That the dead body of the servant Hemraj was found lying in  the pool of blood on the terrace of flat no. L-32, Jalvayu Vihar on May  17, 2008 and the door of terrace was found locked from inside;

4. That there is a close proximity between the point of time when  both the accused and the deceased persons were last seen together alive  and the deceased were murdered in the intervening night of May 15 and  16, 2008 and as such the time is so small that possibility of any other  person(s) other than the accused being the authors of the crime becomes  impossible;

5. That the door of Aarushi's bed-room was fitted with automatic  click-shut lock. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, the then S.P. (City), NOIDA has  deposed that when he talked to Rajesh Talwar on May 16, 2008 in the  morning, he had told him that in the preceding night at about 11.30 P.M.  he had gone to sleep with the key after locking the door of Aarushi's  bed-room from outside. Both the accused have admitted that door of  Aarushi's bed-room was having automatic-clickshut lock like that of a  hotel, which could not be opened from outside without key but could be  opened from inside without key. No explanation has been offered by the  accused as to how the lock of  Aarushi's room was opened and by whom. 

6. That the internet remained active in the night of the gory  incident suggesting that at least one of the accused remained awake;
7. That there is nothing to show that an outsider(s) came inside the house in the said night after 9.30 P.M.;

8. That there was no disruption in the supply of electricity in that night;

9. That no person was seen loitering near the flats in suspicious circumstances during that night;

10. That there is no evidence of forcible entry of any outsider(s) in the flat in the night of occurrence;

11. That there is no evidence of any larcenous act in the flat;

12. That in the morning of May 16, 2008 when the maid came to the  flat for the purpose of cleaning and mopping, a false pretext was made  by Nupur Talwar that door might have been locked from outside by the  servant Hemraj although it was not locked or latched from outside;

13. That the house maid Bharti Mandal has nowhere stated that when she came inside the flat both the accused were found weeping;

14. That from the testimony of Bharti Mandal it is manifestly  clear that when she reached the flat and talked to Nupur Talwar then at  that time she had not complained about the murder of her daughter and  rather she told the maid deliberately that Hemraj might have gone to  fetch milk from Mother dairy after locking the wooden door from outside.  This lack of spontaneity is relevant under section 8 of the Evidence  Act;

15. That the clothes of both the accused were not found soaked  with blood. It is highly unnatural that parents of deceased Aarushi will  not cling to and hug her on seeing her murdered;

16. That no outsider(s) will dare to take Hemraj to the terrace  in severely injured condition and thereafter search out a lock to be  placed in the door of the terrace;

17. That it is not possible that an outsider(s) after committing  the murders will muster courage to take Scotch whisky knowing that the  parents of the deceased Aarushi are in the nearby room and his top  priority will be to run away from the crime scene immediately. 

18. That no outsider(s) will bother to take the body of Hemraj to  the terrace. Moreover, a single person cannot take the body to the  terrace;

19. That the door of the terrace was never locked prior to the  occurrence but it was found locked in the morning of May 16, 2008 and  the accused did not give the key of the lock to the police despite being  asked to give the same;

20. That the accused have taken plea in the statements under  section 313 Cr.P.C. that about 8-10 days before the occurrence painting  of cluster had started and the navvies used to take water from water  tank placed on the terrace of the flat and then Hemraj had started  locking the door of the terrace and the key of that lock remained with  him. If it was so then it was not easily possible for an outsider to  find out the key of the lock of terrace door;

21. That if an outsider(s) may have committed the crime in  question after locking the door of terrace and had gone out of the flat  then the outer most mesh door or middle mesh door must have been found  latched from outside;

22. That the motive of commission of the crime has been established;

23. That it is not possible that after commission of the crime an outsider(s) will dress-up the crime scene;

24. That golf-club no.5 was thrown in the loft after commission  of the crime and the same was produced after many months by the accused  Rajesh Talwar;

25. That pattern of head and neck injuries of both the accused  persons are almost similar in nature and can be caused by golf-club and  scalpel respectively;

26. That the accused Rajesh Talwar was a member of the Golf-Club  NOIDA and golfclubs were produced by him before the CBI and scalpel is  used by the dentists and both the accused are dentists by profession;

That's  for today. Sayonara :)