Tal­wars’ lawyers con­tested CBI’s ‘cir­cum­stan­tial’ proof

Hindustan Times (Lucknow) - - SPOTLIGHT - Peeyush Khan­del­wal peeyush.khan­del­wal@hin­dus­tan­times.com

GHAZI­ABAD: The team of lawyers rep­re­sent­ing Tal­wars had fiercely con­tested the CBI’s ‘chain of cir­cum­stan­tial ev­i­dence’ on the ba­sis of which the Ghazi­abad court had con­victed Ra­jesh Tal­war and Nupur Tal­war for the mur­ders of their daugh­ter Aarushi and do­mes­tic help Hem­raj Ban­jade.

Dur­ing the course of the trial at the Ghazi­abad court, the CBI had built up its case on cir­cum­stan­tial ev­i­dence and had put for­ward a chain against the Tal­wars.

“Dur­ing the course of trial at the Al­la­habad High Court, we had chal­lenged var­i­ous pieces of ev­i­dence put for­ward by the CBI to prove their cir­cum­stan­tial chain of ev­i­dence against the Tal­wars. We fiercely chal­lenged the tes­ti­mony of Bharti Man­dal, the sus­pi­cious in­ter­net router ac­tiv­ity and Aarushi’s post-mortem’s re­port as in­ter­preted by the pros­e­cu­tion,” said Dilip Ku­mar, a se­nior lawyer rep­re­sent­ing Tal­wars at the high court.

Bharti, a 35-year-old un­e­d­u­cated maid, had joined Tal­wars’ res­i­dence only a week be­fore the dou­ble mur­der and two of her CrPC 161 state­ments were recorded in June 2008.

In Septem­ber 2012, dur­ing the course of trial at Ghazi­abad, Bharti, apart from her state­ments be­fore the court, had also said that, “Jo samjhaya gaya wahi bayan de rahi hu (I am telling what­ever I was told).” De­spite all this, she had de­nied that she was giv­ing any wrong state­ments un­der pres­sure from the Cen­tral Bu­reau of In­ves­ti­ga­tion (CBI).

“Bharti was con­sid­ered a re­li­able wit­ness dur­ing the trial stage. We con­tended about the im­prove­ments in her state­ments and also that she was a tu­tored wit­ness,” Ku­mar added. “We had chal­lenged the CBI’s in­ter­pre­ta­tion of Aarushi’s post mortem re­port and told that the in­ves­ti­ga­tion had glitches,” he added.

Dur­ing the course of the trial, Dr Su­nil Dohre, the doc­tor who con­ducted Aarushi’s post-mortem had men­tioned ‘NAD’ (noth­ing ab­nor­mal de­tected) in in­ter­nal and ex­ter­nal ex­am­i­na­tion.

Dohre’s tes­ti­mony was cru­cial to the CBI’s case as they main­tained that Aarushi’s body was cleaned af­ter the mur­der.

The ap­pel­lants’ lawyers chal­lenged the de­bated ‘sus­pi­cious router ac­tiv­ity’ the­ory, sug­gest­ing that the in­ter­net was in use and the Tal­wars were awake.

Dur­ing the trial stage, the CBI had main­tained that the in­ter­net router was fi­nally switched off at 3.43am on the night of mur­ders and again switched on at around 6am in the morn­ing.

“We tried to de­mol­ish the router ac­tiv­ity the­ory of the CBI and con­tended that no in­fer­ence can be drawn and the piece of ev­i­dence can­not be re­lied upon against our clients” the lawyer added.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.