New Delhi: With the Aarushi-Hemraj double murder case back in public discourse following a movie and a book on it, CBI has put out on its website all court orders - from Ghaziabad special court to Supreme Court -- related to the case.
Dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar were found guilty of killing their daughter Aarushi and domestic servant Hemraj by the Ghaziabad special court.
The 210-page exhaustive order by the then special judge Shyam Lal has gone into arguments of defence as well prosecution for nearly a year before the dentist couple were sentenced for life for the crimes.
While CBI was officially tight-lipped on the release of the book and the movie, senior officials said judgements and orders of various courts were self explanatory for the public to judge.
CBI has started from the beginning of the case and uploaded all the court orders which includes cognisance order of the special CBI court in Ghaziabad to final conviction order by the sessions court. The bail application filed thereafter by the two accused and order of the Allahabad High Court has also been uploaded by the probe agency.
Known as an honest and experienced judge, Lal had said in his judgement that there was no evidence of any entry into Talwars' residence in Jalvayu Vihar Noida on the night of 15-16 May, 2008, when 14-year-old Aarushi and Hemraj were killed in the flat.
In his elaborate judgement, Lal cited 26 reasons for proclaiming the dentist couple guilty and sentencing them to an imprisonment for life.
"From the evidence as tendered by the prosecution in form of oral and documentary evidence this court reaches to the irresistible and impeccable conclusion that only the accused persons are responsible for committing this ghastly crime as the following circumstances unerringly point towards the hypothesis of guilt of the accused," the order said.
CBI, after its first investigations, could not stand in the court of law, carried out a fresh probe after which it had filed a closure court before a designated court.
The designated court rejected the closure report saying there was enough circumstantial evidence against the Talwars and committed the case to the sessions court in Ghaziabad.
The uploaded documents on the CBI website also include the order of division bench of Allahabad High Court in which observations were made against the Talwars.
"The non-existent facts and circumstances narrated in the bail applications have been distorted by the appellants by their own interpolations and the issues in question averred therein are those which basically require decision on the appeals," justices Rakesh Tiwari and Anil Kumar Agarwal said in their order in May last year on the bail applications filed by the dentist couple.
While dismissing one of the appeals for suspension of their sentences, the order passed in May last year said, "The reaction and conduct of the accused persons on the alleged sudden discovery of the dead body of their only daughter Aarushi was not natural."
It also said "the accused have claimed themselves to be the pillar of the society, yet it appears from the record that they had tried to influence the doctors from giving correct observations in their reports."
The judges said the appellants seem to be people of power and status who could influence witnesses, doctors and investigating team of the CBI and approach not only this court but also the apex court a number of times.
The Allahabad High Court observed that the two accused were now they residing outside the state and jurisdiction of the court and "if they are released on bail, they may not be available at the time of hearing of appeal which according to them would come up after 25-30 years from now.
"Prima facie, no legal infirmity is found in the impugned judgment. We, therefore, do not see any mitigating circumstance why they be granted freedom on bail and not to undergo sentence awarded to them. We may not be misunderstood by any observations made above, as it is only for the purpose of disposal of bail application and are not on merits of the appeal," the order had said.
During the trial, Talwars had hired a battery of lawyers to contest the case right from sessions court to Supreme Court contesting every bit of evidence produced by CBI.
The CBI closure report detailed all the circumstantial evidence gathered during the probe but since they do not have forensic evidence against any of the suspects, the agency said there was no direct evidence.
City Magistrate Preeti Singh rejected the report saying the circumstantial evidence has enough details for conducting trial against Talwar couple.
Recently, the book and the film have given rise to debate over the case as both of them weigh in favour of the Talwars while the case is pending before Allahabad High Court.
Talwars have missed four dates of hearing claiming their lawyers are busy in Supreme Court. After it was pointed out that Supreme Court was on vacation on the dates cited by Talwars, the high court now has asked them to file an affidavit giving details of dates and cases in which their lawyers were busy.
Family members of the some of the CBI officials against whom certain aspersions were cast in the book are planning to move court against the remarks made.
The book by a former journalist talks about background of people involved in probe by the second team of CBI apparently giving motive to the decisions taken by them.
For example, it talks about M S Dahiya, expert from Forensic Science Laboratory, Gandhinagar who "suggested" to CBI
in his report that it was case of honour killing.
"... A third, more complex facet of Dahiya's personality also came through. His belief systems -- rooted in the culture of North India's Jats. The Jats governed by their Khap Panchayats are widely regarded as a conservative community engaging in honour killing. Does everyone in the community believe in these practices? Certainly not. But it is easier for them to believe that others might kill for honour? Most likely, yes," the book says.
The book is silent about the background or pictorial description about Joint Director Arun Kumar's personality. It tries to justify the conclusions reached by Kumar in other famous cases he handled whereas about second team under Late AGL Kaul, the author has questioned methods of investigation by the officer.