Brief facts of the Case Background

1.

Ms. Aarushi daughter of Dr. Rajesh Taiwar and Dr. Nupur Taiwar R/o L-32, Jalvayu Vihar, Sect-25, Noida was found murdered in the morning of 16.05,08 in her room. On the basis of written complaint received from Dr. Rajesh Taiwar, a case under crime no. 695/08 was registered u/s 302 IPC at PS, Sect-20, Noida on 16.5.2008. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh issued notification no. 1937-VI-P..3-2008 15(48) P/2008. Lucknow, dtd. 29.05.08 giving consent for transfer of investigation of this case to CBI. Thereafter a notification was issued by DOPT, Govt. of india, New Delhi on 31.05.08 whereby the investigation of this case was transferred to CBI. In pursuance of these notifications case crime no. 695/08 mentioned above was registered by CBI as RCI(S)/2008/SCRTIT/CBT/Ncw Delhi on 3 1.05.08.

Investigation by UP Police (16.5.2008 to 31.05.2008) 2. On 16.5.2008, Dr. Rajesh Taiwar in his written complaint had alleged that his servant Hemraj had killed his daughter in the night of 15/16.05.2008 and that he was missing. However the body of Hemraj, servant of Dr. Rajesh Taiwar who was alleged to have killed Aarushi, was recovered on 17.05.08 from the terrace of the residence of Dr. Rajesh Talwar. The post mortem of deceased Aarushi was conducted by Dr. Sunil Kumar Dohare on 16-5-08. The scene of crime was inspected by the Investigating Officer on 16.5.2008 During inspection of the scene of crime, UP Police observed that the flat of Dr. Rajesh Talwar was secure from all sides and there were no signs of any forcible entry from outside. No theft of property was reported by the inmates of the house. The police personnel, after inspecting the scene of crime, took photographs of the scene of crime and also took various items in their possession. These included the blood soaked clothing and bedding of victim Aarushi, few bottles of cold drinks and a Ballantine Scotch whisky bottle which was seized from the dining table of Dr. Rajesh Taiwar. 3. During investigation by U.P. Police, Dr. Rajesh Taiwar was arrested on 23.05.2008 and

produced in the court at Ghaziabad on 24.05.2008. On 25.07.2008 the court granted three days police custody which was extended till 30.05.2008. Thereafter. Dr. Rajesh Taiwar was sent to judicial custody on 30.05.2008. Investigation by CBI (31.5.2008 till date). 4. The CBI took Dr. Rajesh Taiwar in custody from 01.06.08 to 04.06.08. During this period he was interrogated in detail but no recovery was made and no evidence was found against him. His judicial custody was extended on the request of CBI till 1 1.07.08 when finally CBI submitted to the court that The scientific examination results could not connect accused Rajesh Taiwar with the crime and that in view of the above circumstances further judicial custody remand of accused Rajesh Taiwar was not required in the interest of justice. The Honbie Court granted bail to Dr. Rajesh Taiwar on 11.07.08.

Sequence of events revealed during investigation. 5. Investigation has revealed that Dr.Rajesh Taiwar was residing at Flat No.L32, Sec 25, Jalvavu Vihar, Noida alongwith his wife Dr.Nupur Taiwar and their only daughter Ms.Aarushi, Hernraj was working as their servant and was residing in the servant room within the flat of Dr.Rajesh Talwar, The flat of Dr.Rajesh Taiwar comprised of three bedrooms, one drawing cum dining room and one servant quarter, all within an area of approximately 1300 Sq.ft. The master bedroom which was being used by Dr.Rajesh Taiwar and Dr.Nupur Talwar and the bedroom being used by Aarushi were adjacent to each other. Some portion of the common wail between these rooms was made of plywood partition. Both the rooms were equipped with AC. The room of Dr.Talwar had a window AC whereas the room of Aarushi had a split AC. During the night of incident both the ACs were on. The distance between the bed of the Taiwar couple and Aanishi was around 7-8 ft. Aarushi was a student of DPS. Noida, reading in class 9th.

6. On 15/5/08 afternoon after school was over, Aarushi was picked up by her mother Dr.

Nupur at about 1.30 p.m. After returning to their residence, Aarushi and her mother stayed home. Before lunch Dr. Vandana Talwar w/o Dr. Dinesh Taiwar (brother of Dr. Rajesh Taiwar) reached the residence of Dr. Rajesh Taiwar at Noida, Dr. Vandana Talwar. Dr. Nupur Taiw ar and Aarushi had lunch together. Dr. Vandana Taiwar remained there till 3.30-4pm, when she left to pick up her son and then went to her residence at 1-Iauz Khas. Dr. Nupur Taiwar left Aarushi at home and went to her clinic. She returned at around 7.30 P.M. and both of them thereafter remained at home till return of Dr. Rajesh Taiwar in the night. 7. On 15/05/2008 at around 9.3Opm, Dr. Rajesh Talwar returned home in his car driven by his driver Umesh, who then went to park the car in the garage of Shri Chitnis, father in law of Dr. Rajesh Taiwar. Umesh thereafter went to the residence of Dr. Taiwar and handed over the keys of the car and hag of Dr. Talwar to Hemraj. At that time, Umesh saw Dr. Nupur and .Aarushi near the dining table and Dr. Taiwar coming out from his bedroom. 8. On 15/5/08 itself, a packet was delivered at the residence of Dr. Taiwar h courier which was received by 1Iernraj. This contained a digital camera which was ordered by Dr. Taiwar through the internet. Dr. Taiwar on his return at night, saw the packet, carried it to his bedroom and kept it in his alrnirah. This camera was purchased by Dr. Taiwar as a gift for Aarushi for her birthday which was on 24.5.2008. After dinner, Dr. Nupur Taiwar alongwith Aarushi went to Aarushis room. Dr.Nupur persuaded Dr. Rajesh Taiwar that the camera be gifted to Aarushi that night itself instead of waiting for her birthday. Dr. Nupur Taiwar then took the camera to Aarushis room and handed over the camera to Aarushi. According to the Taiwar s Aarushi took a few photographs from th.e camera which included photographs of herself and her parents. The wall clock which is also seen in the photograph shows that these photographs were taken at 10.10 PM. Thereafter Dr. Rajesh Taiwar and Dr. Nupur Taiwar went to their bedroom while Aarushi remained in her bedroom. Both the bedrooms are adjacent and have a plywood partition between them.

9. During investigation it was established that on 15/05/2008 Dr. Rjesh Taiwar used the internet and the last access he made was at around 11 .5 7pm. lie was on net till at least 00.08 AM of 16.05.2008. At about 11.00 pm he had asked Dr. Nupur Taiwar to switch on the internet router which was in the room of Aarushi. A close friend of Aarushi named Anmol had rang up the landline of Dr. Taiwar (which is kept in Dr.Talwar s bedroom) at around 12 midnight to talk to Aarushi. The telephone kept ringing but no one picked up the phone.

10. There is no direct evidence as to what happened between 12.08 midnight and 6 AM next day morning hut circumstantial evidence is available to indicate the probable sequences of events. 11. On 16/5/08 morning at around 6 am, maid Bharati rang the door bell of Dr. Talwar as

per her routine. Normally, Hernraj used to open the grill door to allow her inside. However, on that day she rang the door bell twice or thrice and only after that the wooden door was opened by Dr. Nupur Talwar. Dr. Nupur told Bharati that the middle grill door was locked. Dr. Nupur Taiwar then brought keys from the room of Hemraj and tried to open the middle grill door lock from inside hut could not do so. Dr. Nupur told Bharati that the door may be locked from outside at which Bharati told Dr. Nupur to throw the keys from the balcony. At this time Dr. Nupur was normal. Accordingly, Bharati went to the ground level and received the keys thrown by Dr. Nupur from balcony. As per Dr.Nupurs statement she was not aware of the murder of Aarushi till she dropped the key. Dr. Nupur was still normal upto this time. When Bharti had gone downstairs to pick up the keys, Dr.Nupur had called the mobile No, of Hemraj at 6.01 am. Bharti accordingly came upstairs and opened the latch of the door and walked in. By that time, Dr. Nupur and Dr. Rajesh were found standing in the dining area and opposite the door of Aarushis room respectively. Both were weeping and were telling maid Bharti Dekho Hemraj Kya Karke Gaya Hai?. When maid Bharti looked in Aarushis room, she saw her dead body covered with a white bed sheet. Dr. Nupur removed the sheet from her face and showed it to Bharti. On seeing this she became frightened and went out of the residence of Taiwars to inform the neighbours. By this time one or two neighbours had come to the flat. Dr. Nupur also telephoned her parents. Dr. Durrani and Dr. Dinesh Taiwar. The parents of Nupur were the first to reach the residence of Dr. Rajesh Taiwar, Police were informed by the family at around 7.15 am. 12. On receiving information, local police reached the spot and conducted necessary formalities. They were informed by Dr.Talwar that Hemraj had committed the murder and was missing. After necessary formalities, body of Aarushi was sent for postmortem. By this time, some friends of Dr. Rajesh Talwar including one Dr. Rajiv Kumar and Dr. Rohit Kochar had reached the residence of Dr. Rajesh Talwar and had stumbled upon some blood stains on the handle of terrace door which was locked. They had also seen some wiped bloody footmarks and wiped blood stains on the upper staircase, Dr.Rajesh Taiwar was asked for the keys to the terrace door, hut he went inside his residence after having a look at the blood stained door handle. The blood stained marks on the stairs between the flat of Dr. Rajesh Talwar and his terrace were seen by other persons also. Police officers also went and saw the blood stains and directed the IO to get it opened hut police failed to open it on 16/05/2008. Dr.Rajesh Talwar had been insisting that the police instead of wasting time in the flat should search for Hemraj.

13. The body of Aarushi was brought back to the residence of Dr. Rajesh Taiwar by around 2.3O pm. After keeping the body there for about half an hour, the body was taken to the cremation ground in Noida where the last rites of Aarushi were carried out. As soon as the body of Aarushi was taken for cremation, the staff of Dr. Rajesh Taiwar and Dr. Nupur Taiwar, showed undue haste in thoroughly cleaning the floor and walls of Aarushis room with soap and water. The blood stained mattress on the bed of Aarushi and other blood stained articles were carried by them to the terrace. On finding the terrace door locked, they asked for the key of the terrace door of the adjacent flat belonging to Shri Puneesh Tandon. The blood

stained mattress etc. were thrown on the terrace of Shri Puneesh Tandon and the terrace door was locked. 14. On 17/5/08, Dr. Rajesh Talwar. Dr. Nupur Talwar, Dr. Dinesh Talwar and others went to the cremation ground for collecting the ashes. The ashes were collected and kept in a locker which was rented by Dr. R.ajesh Talwar. Dr. Rajesh Taiwar and family members then returned home at around 9 am. On reaching home, after around an hour it was decided that Dr. Rajesh Talwar, Dr. Nupur Taiwar etc will go to Haridwar immediately. Dr. Dinesh Taiwar stayed back. Dr. Rajesh Taiwar, Dr. Nupur Taiwar and Shri Satish Taiwar, a cousin of Dr. Rajesh Taiwar, went to the cremation ground for a second time, collected the ashes kept in the locker and left for Haridwar. 15. Investigation also revealed that Dr. Dinesh Taiwar, Dr. Sushi! Chaudharv and Shri K.K. Gautarn, Retd. DSP were in contact with each other since 16/5/08. Dr. Sushil Chaudhary had contacted Shri K.K. Gautam on 16/5/08 and had told him about the murder of Aarushi. At that time he conveyed the request of Dr. Dinesh Taiwar that rape should not be mentioned in the postmortem report.

16. That on 17/5/08 morning, Dr. Sushil Chaudhary telephoned Shri K.K. Gautam and insisted that Sh. Gautam should accompany him to the residence of Dr. Rajesh Taiwar, where Dr. Dinesh Talwar asked Shri K.K. Gautam, in the bedroom of Dr.Rajesh Talwar, to get the lock of the door of the terrace opened through police. Shri K.K. Gautam went up the stairs to the terrace door and saw blood stains on the stairs and drag marks in front of terrace door. He telephonically contacted local police officers. After a few minutes, police reached the terrace and asked for the keys to the lock. They were told that the keys were not available. The lock of the door was then broken. As soon as the door was opened, all those present saw that there were blood marks on the roof as if a body has been dragged. A body in advanced stage of putrification was seen lying towards the left side of the roof near the external unit of the air conditioner. The body was covered with a cooler panel taken from the cooler situated on the roof. A double bed cover was draped on the iron grill segregating the portion of terrace of Dr. Rajesh Taiwar from the other side of the roof. Immediately on discovery of body, other police officers also reached the spot. Dr. Dinesh Talwar who was present did not identify the body but he did not identify the body. He was then asked to call Dr. Rajesh Talwar for identification of the body. Dr. Dinesh Talwar replied that Dr. Rajesh Talwar had already left for Haridwar and it will be difficult for him to come back as he must have covered a lot of distance. However, within 10-15 minutes, Dr. Rajesh Talwar came to the spot and on seeing the body he also did not identify the body. Later on it was identified by a friend of Hemraj that this was the body of the servant of Dr. Rajesh Talwar named Hemraj who was alleged to have killed Aarushi and run away. Dr. Rajesh Talwar, immediately after that left for Haridwar alongwith Dr. Dinesh Talwar.

17. Investigation relating to postmortem of Aarushi and Hemraj revealed the following facts: Aarushi:
vi. Rigor

mortis had set in. any other body fluid on the underwear or pyjarna of

vii. No signs of asphyxia were visible. viii. There were no signs of urine or

Aarushi,
1. 2. xi.

Doctor found semi digested food in the stomach of Aarushi. The time of death was between 12 midnight and 1:00 am in the night.

As per doctors who conducted postmortem 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.

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

in 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 Hernraj. 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 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 that the cut marks could have been made by a Khukri.

18. During investigation various aspects of the investigation were got clarified and confirmed through Expert opinion. i. The scene of crime was inspected by an expert from FSL Gandhinagar. He gave detailed report in which he pointed out that the crime had been committed by someone very close to Aarushi, He has also opined that the body of Hernraj was dragged on the roof with a sheet. ii. Experts from CFSL have also confirmed that the drag mark on the roof is from the blood soaked body being dragged after being kept in a bed sheet. iii. The experts have measured the golf clubs and have opined about the dimensions of the striking surface of the golf clubs. From this opinion, it is established that the dimensions of the striking surface of golf club no. 5 seized from Dr. Rajesh Taiwar is identical to the dimensions of the injury found on both the victims. DNA expert has confirmed the presence of blood of both the victims on a Ballantine scotch

bottle which was seized from the dining table of Dr. Rajesh. Talwar.

vi. The expert has confirmed that when Aarushi was assaulted, the door of her bed room was open.
vii.

The doctors who conducted the post mortem have stated that the cuts to the neck of both the victims were caused by a small sharp instrument with surgical precision and by a surgically trained person.

viii. The

experts opined that blood of Aarushi was found from the bed sheet recovered from her

bed room. The DNA of Hemraj was found from the blood stained palm print found on the terrace wall and the personal clothing of Hemraj. That DNA of none of the servants was found on any of the exhibits collected from the crime scene. Finger print of the servants or family members were not found on any of the exhibits collected from the scene of crime. 2. No biological fluid or DNA could be recovered from the golf sticks handed over by Dr. Rajesh Talwar.
1. xi.

Two of the Golf sticks from Golf set handed over by Dr. Rajesh Taiwar were cleaner than the other Golf sticks of the set.

xii. Human

blood could not be detected on the khukri which belonged to suspect Krishna.

19. Investigation revealed that the scene of crime in the room of Aarushi as well as on the roof where the body of Hemraj was found was heavily dressed. The important facts which show dressing of the scene of crime are reflected in the photographs of the scene of crime. These includes:

i. The body of Aarushi was lying undisturbed on her bed inspite of use of violent force in the assault. ii. The toys kept on the surface of the bed and back side of the bed are undisturbed.

iii. The

body was covered with a blood drenched white sheet. school bag of Aarushi is seen lying near her body without any blood on it.

viii. The 1.

The pink coloured pillow kept on the hack of the bed falls within the blood pattern area but there is no blood droplets on it. 2. Dragging marks of body of Hemraj towards the outdoor unit of AC. The quantity of blood near the AC is more than the quantity of blood at the spot from where the mark of dragging begins.
xi. The neck xii. Position

of Aarushi was slit later on. of door key of Aarushis room was found unexplained by the parents who were

custodian of the key.

xiii. The xiv. The

body of Hemraj was dragged to the corner on the roof. body of Hemraj was covered by panel of a cooler. night of incident from stair case

xv. The grill on the roof was covered by a double bed cover. xvi. The door to the roof was locked for the first time in the

side.
xvii.

Blood stained drag marks were seen on the stair case leading from the flat of Dr. Rajesh Talwar to the terrace. Some of the blood stained marks were wiped with a cloth.

xviii.

Aarushis Room was cleaned and washed immediately after the body was taken for cremation.

xix.

An impression was given that the outer door of Dr. Taiwars flat was locked from outside which actually was not so.

xx.

The blood of deceased has drained out from the cut in the neck. There is no arterial spurting.

xxi.

The blood on the pillow of deceased Aarushi shows two blood patterns, one is draining of blood and another is splashes of droplets.

xxii.

The injury above the left eyebrow shows a U/V-shaped injury which is horizontal to the body.

20. Investigation with reference to the murder weapon revealed that Dr. Rajesh Talwar was a member of Golf Club, NOIDA. He has been regularly practicing golf using two golf sticks which were kept in his Santro Car. Some time before the incident, the Santro car of Dr. Rajesh Talwar was to be given for servicing. At that time, the driver had taken out both the Golf sticks and had kept them in the room of Hemraj. In the photographs of room of Hemraj, taken by CFSL on 01.06.08, only one golf stick is visible, and the other one was found missing. Dr. Rajesh Talwar was unable to explain the missing golf stick while in police custody remand with CBI. 21. During investigation, on being asked, Dr. Rajesh Talwar handed over the complete golf set comprising of 03 wooden clubs (Nos. 1, 3 & 5), 07 iron clubs (Nos. 3 to 9), 01 iron club marked P and 01 iron putter to CBT. The golf set taken over from Dr. Rajesh Taiwar was sent to experts. No body fluid or blood could be detected on the golf sticks. The schematic diagram of the golf sticks showing their dimensions and dimensions of the striking surfaces was provided to CFSL. The dimensions of the striking surface of the golf club bearing No. 5 were identical to the dimensions of the injury on the heads of victim Aarushi and Hemraj. The expert also pointed out that Golf sticks bearing No. 3 & 5 appeared to have been thoroughly cleaned so much so that they were visibly distinct from the other golf sticks of the set The golf set was subjected to Test Identification Parade by driver of Dr. Rajesh Talwar i.e. Shri Umesh in presence of independent witness. Shri Umesh identified Golf stick No. 4 and 5 as the golf sticks which were kept by him in the room of Hemraj. On being asked to reconcile the earlier missing golf stick with production of complete golf set, Dr. Rajesh Talwar informed that his cousin Ajay Chadda and his wife Dr. Nupur had found one golf stick in the loft of their residence when the loft was being cleaned around a year after the incident Shri Ajay Chadda, confirmed that he and Dr. Nupur Talwar had found one Golf stick in the loft of residence of Dr.Talwar near the room of Aarushi, that the golf stick had a steel head, that as soon as the golf stick was found inthe loft, Dr. Nupur Talwar and Shri Ajay Chadda had seen this golf stick to see whether any blood was on the golf stick This recovery of the golf stick, from the loll; was not intimated by either the Talwars or Shri Ajay Chadda to anyone including CBI for more than a year.

22. During investigation Dr. Rajesh Talwar, Dr. Nupur Talwar Dr. Dinesh Talwar, Dr. Sushil Choudhary, Dr. Ritcha Saxena, suspect servants namely, Krishna, Raj Knmsr & Vijay Mandal were subjected to various scientific tests including Lie Detection Test, Brain Fingerprinting Test and Narco Analysis Tests. The test results for all the suspects were found to be inconclusive.

23. During investigation, CDR details of various mobile phones and internet activity of Dr. Rajesh Talwar were analyzed with the help of experts. The major points which emerged from this analysis are: i. Dr. Rajesh Taiwar used the internet during the night of the incident and he was active on internet till around 12.00 midnight. On the night of 15/16.5.2008, the internet router remained continuously active with small gaps, with last activity at 3.43 a.m. when the router was ultimately switched off. After that the router has been switched on at 6.01 a.mn. when, maid Bharati reached the residence of Dr. Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar made a call on the mobile phone of Hernraj. ii. The opinion of the internet service provider as well as technical expert from CERT-IN confirm that this switching on/switching off with long gap can only be done by i) physically or ii) Due to power cut. As per electric supply department, there was no power cut in that area on that particular night. However, the details of internet activity during day-time on 16/05/2008 shows that the router was switched on and off on a number of occasions with long gaps, even when the police and visitors were in the apartment. The opinion of experts is unable to explain this activity of router on satisfactorily. Unexplained router activity on 16th makes this piece of evidence not fully reliable. iii. Aarushi used to remain busy on her mobile till well after midnight and sometimes upto 1.00 a.m. On the night of incident, her mobile phone was used last at 21.10.25 hrs. and it was switched off after that. Some of the friends of Aarushi had tried to contact her on her mobile phone hut it was found switched off One of her friends Anmol had even tried to contact her on the landline number at around 12.00 midnight hut there was no response. This mobile phone went missing immediately after the murder. The phone could not be traced till 12,09.2009. investigation revealed that Aarushis phone was found by a house maid Kusum around 15 to 20 days after the incident. The phone was found lying on a kacha route which used by people living in Sadarpur area of NOIDA. The phone was sent to CFSL, Hyderabad which confirmed that the IMEI number of the recovered phone and the IMEI number of Aarushis phone were identical. However, the MMC card of the phone as well as the memory of the phone had been cleaned so that no data (SMS, MMS, Phone hook etc.) relating to Arushi was available in the mobile phone. iv. The call details of Hemraj do not show any interaction with any of the three suspect servants on 15.5.2008. On 16.5.20008 at 06.00.01 AM a call has been received for two seconds. The call originated from the residential telephone

number of Dr. Rajesh Talwar (120-4316388). As per the tower location, this mobile phone of Hemraj was located at that time in the area which includes the residence of Dr. Rajesh Talwar. v. On 15.5.2008 Dr. Rajesh Talwar has returned to his home at around 9.30 PM. On this date, the last activity on this phone is at 23.01 hrs. and the tower location shows that he was at his residence. Next day i.e. on 16.5.2008, the first activity is at 6.19 AM and as per tower location, the phone is in the residence of Dr. Rajesh Talwar. vi. On 15.5.2008, there is no activity on the mobile phone of Dr. Nupur Talwar after 19.40.07 hrs. At that time, the tower location indicates that she was at her residence. Her phone remained inactive till 18.5.2008 at 01.07.40 hrs. vii. The CDR activity of Dr. Dinesh Talwar reveals his close interaction with Dr. Sushil Choudhary and the loop of calls between Dr. Dinesh Talwar, Dr. Sushi Choudhary and Shri K.K. Gautam. 24. The CBI during its investigation looked into three possible angles relating to the crime in detail: i) involvement of intruders, other than servants. ii) Involvement of servants, Krishna, Rajkumar & Vijay Mandal. iii) involvement of parents.

i) Involvement of intruders.

The possibility of involvement of intruders other than the servants was ruled out during earlier phase of investigation by UP police. This was further strengthened by various circumstances showing that there was no possibility of involvement of an outsider in this crime. Some of the circumstances are: a. No evidence has come forth which to suggest forcible entry from the outside. b. No evidence has come forth about motive on the part of any outsider.

c. No contact was made by any outsider with either Hemraj or Aarushis parents. d. There is nothing to suggest that the outer most door has been latched/ locked. e. Evidence has come forth that only the family members and Hemraj were last seen the house before the crime and only parents were first seen after the crime. f. Aarushis door cannot be opened by an outsider without a key. g. The guard of the colony examined has stated that no outsider was seen either going into the house of Talwars or coming out from their house. h. No intruder would bother to dress of scene of crime. i. No intruder will hide the body of the victim i.e. Hemraj. j. An intruder will not put a white bed sheet on the dead body of Aarushi. k. No intruder will lock the terrace door. n intruder is unlikely to take liquor inside the flat after committing a double murder when they know that parents are sleeping in the next room.

ii) Involvement of servants. During investigation it was revealed that Krishna was working as a helper/ assistant to Dr.Rajesh Talwar in his NOIDA clinic. Raj Kumar was domestic servant of Dr.Durrani, a close friend of Dr.Rajesh Talwar. Vijay Mandal was a servant of a neighbour of Dr.Rajesh Talwar and used to live in a garage near the flat of Dr.Rajesh Talwar. During investigation it was revealed that Krishna was scolded by Dr.Rajesh Talwar for making a dental cast incorrectly. Krishna was very agitated on this. it was felt that Krishna alongwith his other

Nepali friends might have committed the crime to take revenge against Dr. Rajesh Talwar. Krishna and Raj Kumar were Nepalis known to Hemraj and had access to the home of Dr.Rajesh Talwar, their possible role in the crime was investigated. During the initial investigation by CBI suspect servants namely Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal were arrested and intensive investigation was carried out regarding their possible involvement. However, it was conclusively established that the servants could not have committed the crime for the following reasons:
i.

There is no evidence against the servants except the Narco Test which was not reliable.

ii. There

is evidence that Krishna was woken up in the morning after the crime

by the Police and Landlord K.N. John when he was sound asleep in the garage alongwith his family. The garage belong to Shri K.N.Johri.
iii. There

is evidence that family members of Krishna were witness to his presence at his house

during night. There was no interaction on telephone between any of the servants on that day or physical meeting between them. 2. Hemraj was a teetotaler.
1. vi.

Servants would not have had the guts to assemble in the house of Dr.Talwar when both the doctors were present in the house.

vii.

Presence of Raj Kumar has been explained upto 12.30 AM on that night. He had gone to railway station New Delhi alongwith his employer Dr.Praful Durrani to fetch Dr.Anita Durrani. They had reached home at around 11.30 when Raj Kumar had prepared a meal for Dr.Anita Durrani, who took the food after 12.00 in the night due to her fast. They went to sleep at around 12.30 in the night.

viii.

Minimum time to reach Aarushis house by bycycle is 20 minutes whereas the time of death is between 12.00 to 1.00 AM. So, it is impossible for him to have reached the scene of crime within the estimated time of assault.

The house of Dr. Durrani was locked from inside by Dr. Durrani himself and it was difficult for Raj Kumar to have got out. 2. The Watchmen manning the gate of the Society at both the places did not see any movement of Rajkumar on that night.
1. xi.

There were no phone calls between Raj Kumar and any of the other three servants, hence, there was no prior conspiracy.

xii. Raj xiii.

Kumar was not known to Vijay Mandal and had very little interaction with Krishna.

Raj Kumar did not run away when Krishna was arrested even though he had the

opportunity to do so.
xiv. Vijay xv. Name

Mandal had no mobile to communicate with the others. of Vij ay Mandal did not figure even in the Narco Test.

iii) Involvement of Parents (Dr.Rajesh Taiwar & Dr.Nupur Taiwar). The UP Police during their investigation had suspected Dr.Rajesh Talwar to have committed the crime due to grave & sudden provocation on finding his daughter in a compromising position with Hemraj. Based on the investigation conducted by them, UP Police had arrested Dr.Rajesh Talwar and taken him on Police remand. The investigation by CBI revealed certain peculiar circumstances which point towards involvement of the parents in the crime. Some of the important facts and circumstances are as below:
i. During

pre-test interview at FSL. Gandhinagar. Dr. Rajesh Taiwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar

have stated that they used to lock the bedroom of Aarushi during night. The door of Aarushis bed room had a lock which could be opened from the inside without a key hut once it was shut it cannot be opened from the outside without a key, (It was similar to the locks in hotel rooms) The key to this room used to be kept under the pillow of Dr. Nupur Talwar in their bed room. After the incident the keys to Aarushis room were found in the lobby near the drawing room 12:00 noon on 1605-2008. According to Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Taiwar, they had found the door to the bed room of Aarushi unlocked and slightly open in the morning of 16.5.2008. They could not explain as to whether they had locked the room of in the night of 15.5.2008, and why the key was not traceable in the morning of 16.5.2008. The room of Aarushi. therefore, could have been opened only either by Aarushi herself from inside or by

the parents of Aarushj from outside by using the keys.

ii. The

scene of crime was heavily dressed up which could only have been done by the parents.

The major dressing up of SOC was revealed as follows: the body of Aarushi was found covered with a white bed sheet. The bed linen of Aarushi was found undisturbed. Evidence of postmortem cleaning of the private parts of Aarushi The body of Hernraj was dragged to a corner and covered by a panel of cooler. Locking the door to the staircase for the first time on the night of 15/16.05.2008. Existence of blood stains/drag marks and wiped blood stains on the staircase. Presence of a scotch bottle without glasses on the dining table of Dr.Rajesh Taiwar with blood of both the victims on it indicates involvement of inmates as it was unlikely that an intruder would return to the flat to take liquor after committing two murders. The surgical cuts on the necks of both victims was the work of professional trained experts. This could only be the parents. The entire data on Aarushis mobile was deleted. Normal criminal would have no need to do so.
iii. When

the Police arrived at the Soc on morning of 16.5.2008 they were immediately diverted

by parents and sent to search for Hemraj. Dr.Rajesh Talwar ignored the request for providing the keys to open the lock to the terrace even when blood stains were found on the door. 2. Refused to identify the dead body of 1iemraj when itwas found on the terrace.
1. vi. Request vii. The

for non mention of rape in P.M. proceedings.

call details and statement of Shri K.K. Gautam indicate that detection of dead body of Hemraj was not a mere coincidence.

CONCLUSION 25. The findings of the investigation reveal a number of circumstances that indicate the involvement of the parents in the crime and the cover up. However there are a number

of critical and serious gaps in the circumstances which make it difficult to string together the sequence of events and motive behind the gruesome murder. The investigating team was handicapped by the inability of the first responders to examine the scene of crime properly and collect all possible available evidences which could be available only to the first responder. Despite best efforts by investigating team, some of the major shortcomings in the evidence are:
i. No

blood of Hemraj was found on the bed sheet and pillow of Aarushi. There is no evidence to prove that Hemraj was killed in the room of Aarushi.

ii. Dragging

mark on steps only indicate that murder has taken place somewhere other than the

terrace.
iii. On

the clothes of Dr. Rajesh Talwar, only the blood of Aarushi was found but there was no trace of blood of Hemraj.

The clothes that Dr.Nupur Talwar was wearing in the photograph taken by Aarushi in the night of the incident were seized by CBI but no blood was found during forensic examination. 2. Murder weapons were not recovered immediately after the offence. One of the murder weapon i.e. sharp edged instrument could not be recovered till date and expert could not find an blood stain or DNA of victims from golf stick to directly link it to the crime.
1. vi. There

is no evidence to explain the finger prints on the scotch bottle (which were found

along with blood stains of both the victims on the bottle). As per police diary, it was taken into possession on morning itself. In spite of best efforts, the fingerprint could not be identified.
vii. The

guards of the colony are mobile during night and at the entrance they do not make any

entry. Therefore, their statements regarding movement of persons may not be foolproof.
viii. Scientific

tests on Dr.Rajesh Talwar and Dr.Nupur Talwar have not conclusively indicated

their involvement in the crime. The exact sequence of events between (in the intervening night of 1 5 16/05/2008) 00.08 mid night to 6:00 AM in the morning is not clear. No evidence has emerged to show the clear role of Dr. R.ajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar, individually, in the commission of crime. 2. A board of experts constituted during earlier investigation team has given an opinion that the possibility of the neck being cut by khukri cannot be ruled out, although doctors who have conducted postmortem have said that cut was done by surgically trained person with a small surgical instrument.
1. xi. There xii. The

is no evidence to explain the presence of Hemrajs mobile in Punjab after murder.

offence has occurred in an enclosed flat hence no eye witness are available.

xiii.

The blood soaked clothes of the offenders, clothes used to clean the blood from the flat and stair case. the sheet on which the Hemraj was carried and dragged on the roof, the bed cover which was used to cover the view from the steel iron grill on the roof are not available and hence could not be recovered.

26. The investigation revealed several suspicious actions by the parents post occurrence, but the circumstantial evidence collected during investigation has critical and substantial gaps. There is absence of a clear cut motive and incomplete understanding of the sequence of events and non-recovery of one weapon of offence and their link to either the servants or the parents. In view of the aforesaid shortcomings in the evidence, it is felt that sufficient evidence is not available to prove the offence U/s 302/201 IPC against accused Dr. Rajesh Talwar beyond reasonable doubt. It is, therefore, prayed that the case may be allowed to be closed due to insufficient evidence. Submitted please. (A.G.L.Kaul) Addl. Supdt. of Police, CBI, SC.II, New Delhi.