Ghaziabad: Dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar were on Tuesday awarded life imprisonment by a CBI court for killing their teenaged daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj in a sensational double murder that gripped the nation for five-and-a-half years.
49-year-old Rajesh and Nupur(48) were spared the death penalty by Additional Session Judge Shyam Lal who rejected the CBI plea for maximum punishment.
"Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that both the accused are not menace to the orderly society. This is not a fit case for inflicting death penalty under section 302(murder) read with section 34 IPC(common intention to commit the crime) and, therefore, it appears just and proper to sentence the accused to rigorous imprisonment for life," the judge said.
Arguing before the court on quantum of punishment in the murder in May 2008, CBI counsel R.K. Saini contended that the killings were cold-blooded murders which deserved maximum punishment.
Defence counsel Tanvir Mir countered CBI's argument and said the evidence against the Talwars were weak and sought leniency for the couple. He asserted that the crime did not fall under the rarest of rare category since the judge had concluded that the crime was result of a sudden and grave provocation.
The arguments lasted just five minutes before the judge adjourned proceedings and pronounced the quantum of sentence at 4.30 PM. The Talwar couple remained composed.
The Talwars were also sentenced for five years for destruction of evidence and Rajesh for another one year for filing wrong FIR with police. All the sentences pronounced by the judge, who relied heavily on the circumstantial evidence provided by the CBI, will run concurrently.
Speaking to reporters soon after the verdict, the lawyer of Talwars said that they would appeal against the order.
Expressing disappointment over the verdict, Aarushi's friend Fiza Jha said, "Aarushi will get justice only when her parents find peace and her true killers are punished."
The dentist couple were on Monday convicted in the murder of their 14-year-old daughter Aarushi and 45-year-old Hemraj in a case that was awash with allegations of sleaze and sex, police-goof-ups, CBI flip-flops and media bias. The judge also made a reference to freaks in the history of mankind who kill their own progeny.
The couple was convicted under IPC sections 302(murder), 201(destruction of evidence) and 34( common intention to commit the crime). Rajesh was also convicted separately for "furnishing false information to the police regarding the murder of his daughter by Hemraj(Section 203)."
In its probe, UP police had said that Aarushi and Hemraj were killed by Rajesh at his Noida home on May 15-16 night, 2008, in a fit of rage after finding them in an objectionable position. Investigators said Nupur helped in the crime. The throat of the two victims were found slit.
The judge mentioned in the order that murders could not be the handiwork of a single person. Justifying the conviction under section 34 of the IPC i.e common intention, Lal cited a number of Supreme Court orders to say that no direct evidence of common intention is necessary.
"For the purpose of common intention even the participation in commission of offence need not be proved in all cases. The common intention can develop even during the course of an occurrence," he said.
Lal also rejected "terminus ad quem" of the argument of defence counsel that the crimes were carried out by "some other person(s)" who had visited Hemraj on the night of murders which is clearly indicated by the blood found on Sula wine bottle, Kingfisher beer bottle and Sprite plastic bottle seized from the room of the servants.
"I find myself completely in disagreement with the said contention of the learned counsel for the accused. Of course, there is no direct evidence in this case but as discussed above it is clear that the prosecution has placed a clinching wealth of circumstances from which the guilt of both the accused has been made out to the extent human instruments can apprehend. Recondite possibility of alternative hypothesis as put forward by the accused cannot be accepted," he said.
The court rejected the arguments given by defence which has raised question marks on the allegations that private parts of Aarushi were cleaned after her murder.
"The bed-sheet was seized and sealed by Sub Inspector Dataram Naunaria. It was examined by Dr B K Mohapatra... In the examination report...it has been mentioned that...printed multi-coloured bed-sheet having reddish brown stains at many places urine, semen could not be detected and designated circular area... did not yield DNA for analysis," order noted.
The judge said in the face of this clinching and reliable scientific evidence it is proved to the hilt that the private parts of Aarushi were cleaned with water and that's why in the designated circular area of the bed-sheet neither urine nor semen was found.
The defence has said that Dr Sunil Dohre, who conducted Aarushi's post-mortem on May 16, had mentioned in his report that on the examination of private parts "no abnormality" was detected.
The defence had claimed that Dohre also did not give statement regarding the vaginal status to police, CBI or any member of the AIIMS committee and made changes only on September 20, 2009 during the recording of his sixth statement by A G L Kaul, who was part of second team of the agency.
The court said Dohre gave the vaginal status only when he was asked specifically to tell about it by Kaul. The judge said since no one asked he did not tell them. "It was not expected of Dr Dohre to tell the other members of the expert committee about the vaginal status of Aarushi. In view of the discussion the arguments of the learned counsel cannot be accepted," it said.
According to the judge, Dohre also stated that when he was on way to postmortem examination room, Rajesh's brother Dinesh gave him a cell phone and told him to talk with Dr T D Dogra of AIIMS.
"Although, Dohre had only stated that T D Dogra had told him that blood samples of deceased Aarushi be taken but it appears that Dogra had asked him not to mention in the postmortem examination report about the evidence of sexual intercourse and this fact has been deliberately suppressed by Dohre," he said.
Lal said, "If the condition of vagina, vaginal orifice was not mentioned in postmortem examination report and it was also not mentioned that hymen was old, torn and healed then it shows negligence or deliberate act on the part of Dohre who appears to have suppressed these material facts in the postmortem examination report only because he was approached by T D Dogra and Dinesh Talwar of his professional fraternity who remained in touch with him before postmortem examination."
The judge said presence of white discharge in the vaginal cavity of Aarushi denotes that she was engaged in sexual intercourse, albeit, no sperm was found in the vaginal swab.
"If both the deceased could not have been found engaged in sexual intercourse there was no reason to make endeavour that factum of sexual intercourse be not mentioned in the postmortem examination report of Aarushi," he said.
He said it becomes evident that Sushil Chaudhary, Dinesh Talwar and K.K. Gautam were in touch with each other on telephones over this issue (to not mention evidence of sexual intercourse) and call-detail records have been duly proved.
In case of testimony of a crucial witness - Talwars' maid Bharti Mandal who was first to arrive at their residence on May 16, 2008 - which has been questioned by the defence alleging she was tutored, the judge said the maid has nowhere stated that before giving statement to the investigating officer, she was tutored by anyone.
"One must not forget that... Bharti Mandal is totally illiterate and bucolic lady from a lower-strata of the society and hails from Malda district of West Bengal who came to Noida to perform menial job to sustain herself and family and therefore, if she has stated that she has given her statement on the basis of tutoring, her evidence cannot be discarded or rejected," Lal said.
"The accused Nupur Talwar has admitted in her answers to question nos. 18, 19, 22 and 23 under section 313 CrPC that the evidence given by Bharti Mandal is correct. However, she has taken plea that the evidence of Bharti Mandal to the effect that she had put her hand on the outer mesh door is incorrect as she has not stated this fact to the investigating officer," he said.
The judge said Mandal, who is completely disinterested witness having no animosity or rancour against the accused, cannot be brushed aside as unworthy of belief.
