Tal­wars

Hindustan Times ST (Jaipur) - - Nation -

“We are sat­is­fied with the judg­ment and are greatly re­lieved. We be­lieve jus­tice has been done as the court has set aside the trial court’s or­der for the lack of suf­fi­cient ev­i­dence,” said de­fence coun­sel Dilip Ku­mar, who rep­re­sented the Tal­wars.

The HC also pointed out “vari- ous short­com­ings” in the lower court’s judg­ment, while rul­ing in favour of the de­fen­dants who had chal­lenged the ver­dict.

Jail of­fi­cials at Dasna said the cou­ple was likely to be re­leased on Fri­day af­ter they re­ceived a copy of the court or­der.

Sources in the CBI said they would de­cide the next course of ac­tion af­ter study­ing the ver­dict.

The high court ver­dict caps a se­ries of twists and turns in the trial of a case that gripped the na­tion. Within weeks of the mur­der, the Ut­tar Pradesh po­lice drew flak for do­ing a shoddy job and al­legedly tam­per­ing ev­i­dence. Then chief min­is­ter Mayawati then handed over the case to the CBI.

Two CBI in­ves­ti­ga­tors reached dif­fer­ing con­clu­sions on the ba­sis of more or less the same ev­i­dence.

The first team led by Arun Ku­mar claimed a break­through on the ba­sis of “sci­en­tific ev­i­dence”, pri­mar­ily narco-anal­y­sis test re­ports, and ar­rested three men — Tal­war’s com­pounder Kr­ishna and two do­mes­tic helps work­ing in the neigh­bour­hood, Ra­jku­mar and Vi­jay Man­dal. But the agency even­tu­ally failed to build a case against them.

An­other team probed the par­ents but it too failed to build a case, fil­ing a clo­sure re­port in 2009 that named Ra­jesh Tal­war as the sole sus­pect based on cir­cum­stan­tial ev­i­dence but re­fused to charge him over lack of ev­i­dence.

But a spe­cial CBI court re­jected the fed­eral agency’s claim that there was not enough ev­i­dence, and or­dered pro­ceed­ings against the Tal­wars.

In a 208-page or­der on Novem­ber 25, 2013, CBI judge Judge Shyam Lal pro­nounced the Tal­wars guilty of both mur­ders and de­struc­tion of ev­i­dence. That ver­dict was re­versed on Thurs­day.

(With in­puts from

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.