Talwars’ lawyers contested CBI’s ‘circumstantial’ proof
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.