The CBI special magistrate was very critical of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for filing a closure report in the Aarushi Talwar murder case when ‘the available evidences on record’ pointed towards her parents, Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, to make them ‘culprits prima facie’.
In her 21-page order, magistrate Preeti Singh said: ‘On the basis of evidences received from witnesses and available circumstantial evidences in the case diary, it was expected that the investigation officer could have filed a charge sheet against Dr. Rajesh and Dr. Nupur Talwar. In such cases, where the crime was committed within a house direct evidence is not expected.’
‘Here it is also important to mention that CBI is the county’s leading investigation agency in which the country’s public has tremendous faith. In a case when any other investigation agency fails to investigate, then the CBI is assigned the job. In such cases it is expected from CBI by keeping up its high esteemed values to investigate and present such report before the court which is judicious on the basis of available evidences, but here in this CBI did not act accordingly, which is very much discouraging,’ added the magistrate.
In the concluding part of the order, the CBI special magistrate mentioned that ‘the closure report submitted by the investigation officer is not logical if it fails to submit chargesheet in absence of evidence, while the indications from the sequence of events and available evidences on record are indicating towards Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar to make them culprit prima facie.’
The statement of witness painter Shohrat that Rajesh Talwar wanted to paint the wooden wall erected between his bedroom and Aarushi’s bedroom indicated that Rajesh Talwar wanted to tamper with the evidence. Such evidences have come up from other witnesses available on the case diary also, the magistrate noted.
The magistrate presented a citation of a case Jagdish Ram versus state of Rajasthan and others vide FIR No.1734/2004 in which the Supreme Court of India ruled that ‘investigation is the jurisdiction of police, taking cognizance is the jurisdiction of magistrate. If evidence is found on record on which basis cognizance could be taken then the magistrate should take cognizance provided the concerned magistrate is satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the culprit. At this stage, magistrate should not conclude to proceed for conviction of the culprit.’
In her order, magistrate Preeti Singh mentioned that at the time of occurrence of the crime there were four members in the house. Two members Aarushi and Hemraj were found murdered. There is no such evidence in the case diary to show that forcibly entry could have occurred by any outsider criminal. The evidence of involvement of servants has not come up in the case diary.
Aarushi, a Class 9 student of Delhi Public School, Noida, was found murdered under mysterious circumstances in her parents’ Jalvayu Vihar Apartment in Noida May 16, 2008.
Their domestic help Hemraj was initially suspected for the killing, but his body was found on the flat’s terrace a day later.
The magistrate in her report noted that the internet router, which was kept in Aarushi’s room, had to be manually put on and off. It was turned on before midnight and turned off post 3 a.m. on the night of the murders, this is mentioned in the case diary. The private parts of Aarushi had been cleaned. The body of the servant Hemraj was dragged from the flat to the rooftop and the main gate of the staircase was locked. Before May 15, this gate was never locked.
The blood stains on the staircase had been washed. The slit marks on the necks of both were found to have been performed by surgical instruments by a trained person. The V shaped wound on the heads of both deceased were identical to a golf stick. An outsider could have not used the internet during the same time on that night when the crime was committed. Blood stained footprints were found in Aarushi’s room while no footprint was found outside her room. If an outsider had committed the crime the footprints would have been marked on the floor beyond Aarushi’s room leading to the drawing room to the main gate that has access to the entire house. No outsider could have relished whiskey after committing the crime and then dragged Hemraj’s body to the rooftop while the remaining two members of the family were in the house at the time, the magistrate further noted.
Interestingly, Sanjay Tyagi, a lawyer, filed an independent protest petition last month. The lawyer protested the closure report as an independent person and urged the court to reject the report and issue notices to the Talwars. In his prayer, the lawyer requested the court to summon Rajesh and Nupur Talwar as accused persons. The lawyer further said that he requested the court to reject the closure report and order further investigation.