Case Analysis-Noida double murder case

The case analysis of the double murder of Aarushi Talwar,14 year old girl and a domestic help Hemraj by the parents of the deceased Aarushi-Dr.Rajesh Talwar and Dr.Nupur
Talwar.

1. LEGAL METHODS

1



CASE ANALYSIS
Dr.Mrs.Nupur Talwar v. C.B.I.,Delhi and Anr.

SUBMITTED TO
Prof. Anshuman Singh

VEDAVALLI.S
B.A.,LL.B(Hons.) Section ‘B’
REGISTER NO: BA0140073

2. LEGAL METHODS

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to sincerely thank my Legal Methods Professor Anshuman Singh for and guiding
me through out the project. Through this research project I have learned a lot about the aforesaid
topic and this in turn has helped me grow as a student.
I also thank my parents and friends for their precious inputs which have been very helpful in the
completion of this project.

3. LEGAL METHODS

3

FACTS
PROCEDURAL HISTORY :

Prosecution : C.B.I., DELHI
Defense : Dr.Mrs.Nupur Talwar and one Dr.Rajesh Talwar
FIR was filed against the defendant under Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 , Section 34 ,
Section 201.
Sessions Court : Ghaziabad
The Sessions Court of Ghaziabad convicted the accused, Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur
Talwar for the foresaid offences under the sections 302,34,201 I.P.C . Dr. Rajesh Talwar is also
convicted under section 203 I.P.C.The accused was found guilty and as charged with life
imprisonment and was fined for Rs.10,000/- each.

Defense found guilty
The accused challenged the judgement of the sessions court in the High Court of Allahabad.
High Court : The accused appealed for bail but the court denied but ordered speedy hearing on
their pleas against the conviction.
Supreme Court :
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared that the judgement of the lower
courts apply.The accused were arrested and taken into custody.
Defense found guilty

4. LEGAL METHODS

4

MATERIAL FACTS :
On 15.05.2008 at about 9:30 P.M. only Dr. Rajesh Talwar, Dr. Nupur Talwar, Ms.
Arushi and Hemraj were last seen in the house by Umesh Sharma (the driver of Dr. Rajesh
Talwar) and on the morning of 16.05.2008 Arushi was found dead in her bedroom, which was
adjacent to the bedroom of the accused persons and between these bedrooms there was a wooden
partition wall.
When the maid Ms. Bharti Mandal went in Arushi‘s room on 16.05.2008 she
discovered that Arushi‘s dead body was lying on the bed covered with a white bed sheet and her
throat was slit. She immediately informed the inmates and went to another house to do her job.
After that Rajesh and Nupur Talwar reached there and called people to come down to their
apartment informing them what had happened. By the time police also arrived and investigation
was taken up by S.I Data Ram Naunaria, who during the course of investigation proceeded to the
scene of crime, inspected the bedroom of the deceased and recorded the statements of Rajesh and
Nupur Talwar. He also seized the blood stained pillow, bed sheet and pieces of mattress from the
room of Arushi and memo was prepared. Mr. Rajesh Talwar filed a report against the domestic
help Hemraj on not finding him in the house suspecting him to have committed Arushi‘s murder.
A site-plan was prepared and statements of Ms. Bharti Mandal and other people were
taken. Mr. Naunaria tried to go to the roof of the house but the door was locked and had blood
stains. He asked Mr. Rajesh Talwar to give him the keys of the lock of the terrace but he said that
he wasn‘t having the keys and asked him not waste his time, else Hemraj will manage to flee
away.
On 17.05.2008, the case took a new turn when the Investigator Data Ram Naunaria found
the dead body of Hemraj on the terrace after he broke the lock of the door. The body was lying in
the pool of blood and was covered with panel of cooler and dragging marks were visible.
Police alleged that Mr. Talwar had killed his daughter and his servant after finding them
in compromising position due to sudden and grave provocation. On 25.05.2008 Mr. Rajesh
Talwar was arrested by local police.

5. LEGAL METHODS

5

LEGAL ISSUE :
There is no doubt about the double murder committed but the legal issue is that
WHETHER THE DOUBLE MURDER WAS COMMITTED BY THE TALWARS?

ARGUMENTS

PROSECUTION :
The prosecution counsil lays down the following facts that :
MURDER WAS COMMITTED BY THE TALWARS :
 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.
 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.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.
 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.
 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

6. LEGAL METHODS

6

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.
 The internet remained active in the night of the gory incident suggesting that at
least one of the accused remained awake.There is nothing to show that an
outsider(s) came inside the house in the said night after 9.30 P.M.There was no
disruption in the supply of electricity in that night.No person was seen loitering
near the flats in suspicious circumstances during that night.There is no evidence of
forcible entry of any outsider(s) in the flat in the night of occurrence.
 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.
 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.The 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.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.
DEFENCE :
MURDER NOT COMMITTED BY THE TALWARS :
 The accused claimed that they were being framed by the police to cover up
their own botched-up investigation.
 The Talwars stated that they slept through the murders because of the noise
produced by two air conditioners on the hot night. The couple's room had a
window AC, and Aarushi's room had a split AC; both were switched on the
night of 15 May. In addition, their bedroom was shut. Aarushi is also believed
to have had a throat infection, due to which she could not have screamed aloud.

7. LEGAL METHODS

7

In 2013, the defence witness and forensic expert Dr. RK Sharma stated that a
14-year-old child would have fallen unconscious immediately due to the first
blow from the blunt weapon, and would not have been able to scream for help.
He based this statement on an analysis of the injuries on Aarushi's body. A
sound expert team later recreated the air conditioners' noise in the house on
CBI's invitation. The team concluded that it was possible that the Talwars'
could not hear the sounds outside their room, and thus, could have slept
through the activities in their house on that night.
 The parents denied that they had dressed up the crime scene, pointing out that if
they wanted to do so, they would have not left the Scotch whisky bottle with
bloodstains in the living room for everyone to see. The family denied that they
had shown any haste in cleaning the crime scene or cremating Aarushi's body.
Nupur's mother Lata Chitnis and their clinic manager Vikas Sethi stated they
received permission from the police to clean the house. The police had told
them that they had already collected all the necessary evidence, including a part
of Aarushi's mattress. It was the police who suggested that Aarushi's mattress
be taken to the terrace for now, given the media clamor downstairs. Vikas
found the terrace locked, and when he could not find the key, he placed the
mattress on the neighbouring terrace. The family also claimed that the police
confirmed that they won't need the body for any further analysis, since the post-
mortem had already been done. Since it was decomposing fast, they cremated
it.
 The Talwars provided counter-arguments for the points that had made them the
prime suspects.The parents also pointed out that they would not indulge in
something like honor killing, as they came from liberal educated families and
had an inter-caste marriage.

8. LEGAL METHODS

8

DECISIONS
SESSIONS COURT :
The Special Judge,Additional Sessions Court,Ghaziabad found the accused Dr.Rajesh
Talwar and Dr.Nupur Talwar,parents of the deceased Aarushi Talwar (14), guilty of committing
a double murder. The accused Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar were convicted under
sections 302 read with section 34 and section 201 read with section 34 I.P.C. Dr. Rajesh Talwar
is also convicted under section 203 I.P.C. Both the accused are sentenced to rigoures
imprisonment for life under section 302 read with section 34 IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each
and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to five years
rigorous imprisonment under section 201 read with section 34 I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.5,000/-
each and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. Dr.
Rajesh Talwar was also sentenced to one year simple imprisonment under section 203 I.P.C.
with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of
one month. The accused shall be sent to District Jail under warrant of conviction.
HIGH COURT :
The accused challenged the Sessions Court judgement in the High Court of Allahabad
asking for bail. The High Court of Allahabad dismissed their appeal affirming the decision of the
Additional Sessions Court,Ghaziabad.
SUPREME COURT :
The accused challenged the order of the High Court and Sessions Court in the Supreme
Court of India,New Delhi. On the basis of the evidence against the accused, the Supreme Court
also denied the appeal.

9. LEGAL METHODS

9

CRITICAL ANALYSIS
According to me, the careful legal perusal of the judgment would leave anyone of the
opinion that there have been lacunae in the application of the laws laid in statutes and the
doctrine of stare decisis.There are various discrepancies in the investigation of the murder of the
14-year-old Aarushi and the domestic help Hemraj.There were discrepancies in the injuries
documented in the post mortem report and the injuries recorded in the judgment.The crucial
report of the sound test conducted by the initiation of the CBI was dismissed by the judge
without recording the reasons as to why the report has been dismissed.
When the case was handed over to the CBI,the investigating officer Arun Kumar had the
possibilities of two lines of investigation-one the friends of Hemraj might have committed the
crime and two the Talwars have committed the crime. The aides admitted to their presence in the
house that night, described the sequence of the crime, the murder weapon, and how Aarushi and
Hemraj’s phones were disposed of. In September 2009, investigating officer Arun Kumar was
taken off the case. A new CBI team took over, with AGL Kaul as the investigating officer. With
this change of team, the case suddenly took a new and malicious twist. While it would have been
fair to continue investigating both sets of suspects — the Talwars and the domestic aides —
inexplicably, after the new team took over, the leads on the aides were allowed to go cold; the
pursuit of the Talwars intensified.
We are still confused whether Hemraj’s body was removed from the crime scene and
planted on the terrace.The conviction of the Talwars based on only the circumstantial evidence
also gives a suspicion.The basis of conviction the Sessions Court Judge had taken is highly
criticizable.The flawed judicial mechanism as a result of which the judgement was delivered is
not in the interests of the justice. In the light of the whole trial based on circumstantial
evidence,the defense witnesses could have given a deeper insight into the case and could have
helped establish the disputed facts further. Thus in the light of justice they should have been
given a chance for a fairer trial to be conducted and a better judgment to be passed.
But the accused did not use the plea of alibi.They were the ones last seen with the
deceased.Forcible entry of any other third person also was not noticed by anybody.Only
circumstancial evidences show that Dr.Rajesh Talwar and Dr.Nupur Talwar had committed the

10. LEGAL METHODS

10

crime.There was no eyewitness to prove it. The media fed on this story with an almost crazed
frenzy, throwing every modicum of journalistic propriety and fact-checking to the wind.
Suddenly, the Talwars found they were not human beings anymore. They were not parents who
had just suffered the most catastrophic tragedy. They were not even just ordinary suspects,
pending further inquiry and proof. They were merely ready meat. The Talwars have been
completely stripped of their humanity. Both the Talwars were put through two sets each of
polygraph tests, brain mapping tests, lie detector tests, and narcoanalysis. Both Nupur and Rajesh
Talwar showed absolutely no deception in their tests. They also showed no knowledge of the
crime.
The CBI in its final report had said that there was insufficient evidence and suggested that
the case be closed.But even then the accused were prosecuted in the trial and were stalled from
producing their witnesses. So here’s the question: what is the evidence that makes the Talwars
look so culpable in people’s eyes?
They could not explain why the keys to Aarushi’s room were not traceable the next
morning (though apparently they were later found near the entrance door); they could not find
the keys to the terrace; they displayed “undue haste” in cleaning the house; they allegedly made a
call to “influence” the post mortem report; they did not cry enough; Hemraj’s body was found
with a cooler panel on it; they seemed to have slept through two gruesome murders in their
house, and so on.
The case could have been investigated even more neutrally so that a better judgement
would have been provided.