An analysis of Aarushi Talwar Murder Case
Authored by Yatharth Chauhan
Keywords: Honor Killing, Surgical Precision, and Investigation report.
The Double Murder Case of Aarushi Talwar as well as Hemraj Banjade is an irresolvable conundrum. Apparently, the Murder case is probably a case of Honor Killing since the explicitly established that the Murder was performed via Surgical Precision. As per the postmortem report of Aarushi as well as Hemraj, both of them were murdered similarly. On the forehead of Aarushi, there was a blunt wound and it was given via a sharp-edged weapon and there was a deep cut on her neck. On Hemraj too, a blunt wound was performed at the back of his head whereas the injury on his neck was similar. The present case aims at analyzing the investigation report along with the order passed by the court of Law.
The two murder cases of Noida embrace a 14-year-old girl named Aarushi Talwar as well as a 45-year-old man named Hemraj Banjade. Hemraj Banjade was the Domestic Servant of Aarushi's Family. These two people were murdered on 15th and 16th May 2008. When the dead body of Aarushi was found on 16th May 2008 their unaccounted Domestic Servant was considered as surmise. But on 17th May 2008, the body of Hemraj Banjade was found on the Terrace. After this, the police took into custody Aarushi's Parents namely Dr. Rajesh Talwar as the main surmise. The Police contended that Aarushi's father had murdered them after finding both of them in a compromise position. Aarushi's father Liasion led to his extortion by their servant named Hemraj, and an encounter with her Daughter. The case was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter CBI). However, the CBI exculpate the Aarushi's parents and surmised the assistant of Talwar named Krishna along with two other servants named Rajkumar and Vijay.
Based on the Narco test which was performed on these three men, the CBI established that they had murdered after a strived sexual strike and the servant Hemraj for being a bystander. Later on, all these three men were emancipated since there was not any plausible evidence against them. In the year 2009, the CBI transferred this investigation to another team. Based on circumstantial evidence, Dr. Rajesh Talwar was suspected, however, on account of lack of compelling evidence, CBI refrained to fix any charge against him. Aarushi's Parents criticized the closure, contending the suspicion of CBI on Dr. Rajesh Talwar completely groundless. Eventually, the court has set aside the opinion of CBI that there was no sufficient evidence and instructed for proceedings against the family and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The order was then challenged before the Allahabad High Court. Nevertheless, the Allahabad High Court acquitted them.
Report About Investigation
1. After taking into consideration, the postmortem report of the U.P Police deduced that two murders were performed by the person in the know with that person who has clinical Precision. On 19th May 2008, the police surmised the former servant named Vishnu Sharma of murdering them on account of getting changed by Hmeraj. However, he was released as Police did not find any significant evidence.
2. On 21st May 2008, the Delhi Police amalgamated with the investigation and surmised Aarushi's friend. The following were the reasons for suspecting them-
(i) Both Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Nupur Talwar denied hearing any sound when she was murdered since they were only 7 feet away from Aarushi's dorm.
(ii) Aarushi's father gave rupees 25000 cash to discover Hemraj. It was considered as a deviation technique.
(iii) When the Hemraj was asked to identify the body of Hemraj, he denied. Thus, it was his method to misguide the Police.
(iv) The Rapidity presented by the family in removing as well as cremating the dead body was an issue of intuition of Police.
The Police also established that Dr. Rajesh Talwar was in an extra-marital relationship with Anita, Talwar's friend. And Aarushi was well aware of his father's extra Marital Relationship and Divulge the same with Hemraj. The Police also contended that Rajesh was unable to control his anger and commit the two murders after finding his daughter in a very compromised position. This news of extra Martial Relationship was established by Aarushi's friend named Aayush. On 23rd May 2008, the police arrested Rajesh Talwar as the main surmised.
3. Afterward, on 1st June 2008, the case was relocated to CBI at the behest of Aarushi's Parents. At first, CBI surmised Krishna, Rajkumar, and Vijay on 13th June 2008. Several narcos tests were performed since they were irrefutable. Nevertheless, the charge sheet was not penned down because it was established that they were not present when the murder was committed. Moreover, the report of the narcos test cannot be depended upon by the court of Law as well as the pillow discovered from the dorm of Krishna which was swamped with the blood of Animal.
The CBI called it a matter of 'blind case' on 26th June 2008. However, the court of Law rejected the bail and a new CBI team was introduced for investigation in the year July 2008. The new team contended that both Aarushi, as well as Hemraj, was murdered by Mrs. Nupur Talwar and Dr. Rajesh Talwar because of the following reasons:
(i) There was no Gesticulation of shattering any door or window. Only four members were present in the flat and out of four two were murdered. So, the burden of proof is entirely on Parents.
(ii) The dorm of Aarushi was bolted by her parents and also the keys were with them.
(iii) An important noteworthy aspect is that the blood could be discovered on the floor, pillow cover, at the entrance of the door but there was not even a single drop of blood on toys, books, school bags, pillow cover, etc. It explicitly implied that on 9th February 2001 the CBI court convicted Aarushi Parents on account of circumstantial evidence as well as the trial of Medi. Hence, it caused a grave miscarriage of Justice.
Question of Fact
At the time of conducting the Trial, the CBI court refused to accept the narco tests of all the servants in the form of admissible proof. The court under section 106 as well as section 114 within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act, had taken into consideration the presence of certain facts against Aarushi's Parents and set aside all the proof manifested by the accused. It was observed that the court has granted the partial judgment and convicted under section 34 which has to be read with section 34 for dabbling with the proof under section 34.
However, the Allahabad High court set aside the mistake committed by the trial court regarding the application of Law and contended that section 106 within the meaning of the Indian Evidence Act, did not exonerate the duty of the prosecution to prove the case of beyond any doubt under section 11o of Indian Evidence of the Act. The court also said that section 106 did not propose to transfer the onus to the accused.
After scrutinizing the facts as well as circumstances of the case, it can be put forward that the special court of CBI was unable to fulfill its duty since the explicit chain of the episode was not entrenched by the investigating branch. And also the main rationale of crime was not established against Aarushi's Parents. The confidence should be maintained in the judicial system so that Justice can be granted to the sufferer effectively.