Aarushi Talwar-Hemraj murder case: What the post-mortem report had said

Zee News accessed the original CBI closure report to find what the post-mortem details of Aarushi and Hemraj said

File photo

NEW DELHI: Nupur and Rajesh Talwar did not kill their daughter Aarushi Talwar and domestic help Hemraj in 2008, ruled the Allahabad High Court on Thursday. The court stressed that the benefit of doubt must be given to Talwars, adding that parents cannot be convicted on the basis of mere suspicion.

On May 16, 2008, 14-year-old Aarushi was found dead in the bedroom with her throat-slit. The body of Hemraj was found on the terrace the next day. The investigating teams claimed that the murders were conducted with surgical precision, suspecting an insider hand. 

The CBI, in it's closure report, claimed that Rajesh Talwar is the main suspect, but there's not enough evidence against him.

Zee News accessed the original CBI closure report to find out the post-mortem details of Aarushi and Hemraj said. Here's a quick look:

CBI Closure Report

Investigation relating to post mortem of Aarushi and Hemraj revealed the following facts:-

Aarushi:

i. A whitish discharge was present inside the vaginal cavity and mouth of cervix of deceased Aarushi.

ii. The hymen of Aarushi was ruptured and was having old tear and was fibriated.

iii. The vaginal orifice of deceased Aarushi was unduly large and the mouth of cervix was visible.

iv. No signs of rape was visible.

v. The whitish discharge present in the private parts of Aarushi was taken and smears sent for Pathological examination. The pathologist reported absence of sperms.

vi. Rigor mortis had set in.

vii. No signs of asphyxia were visible.

viii. There were no signs of urine or any other body fluid on the underwear of pyjama of Aarushi.

ix. Doctor found semi digested food in the stomach of Aarushi.

x. The time of death was between 12 midnight and 1:00 am in the night.

xi. As per doctors who conducted postmortem there were two types of weapons during assault/murder, with one weapon being a heavy blunt weapon and the other being very sharp and light instrument.

xii. The blunt injury was caused first and was sufficient to cause death. The incised wound on the neck was caused later.

xiii. The blunt injury in respect of Aarushi was on the front side of her face on her forehead and on the occipital region.

Hemraj:

i. The time of death was between 12 midnight and 1:00 am in the night.

ii. There was use of two types of weapons during assault/murder: with one weapon being a heavy blunt weapon and the other being very sharp and light instrument.

iii. The blunt injury was caused first and was sufficient to cause death. The incised wound on the neck was caused later.

iv. No food was found in the stomach of Hemraj.

v. The blunt injury is on the back side of his head.

vi. The abrasion and contusion on the body of Hemraj indicated anti-mortem dragging.

Common conclusions:

i. The identical measurement of the lacerated wound by blunt weapon in both the victims shows the use of same weapon to hit both the victims.

ii. As per the statement of doctors who conducted postmortem, the injuries to the neck of both the victims were caused by small and sharp weapon by a surgically trained person in a precise manner. But an expert committee got constituted by earlier had concluded to the cut marks could have been made by a Khukri.