Ghaziabad: Dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar were awarded life imprisonment on Tuesday 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.
The 49-year-old Rajesh and Nupur(48) were spared the death penalty by Additional Sessions 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 May 2008 murders, CBI counsel RK Saini contended that the killings were cold-blooded, deserving 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 the 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 4:30pm.
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 a spurious FIR with the police.
All the sentences pronounced by the judge, who relied heavily on the circumstantial evidence provided by the CBI, will run concurrently.
The dentist couple were convicted on Monday 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 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. The throats of the two victims were found slit.
The judge mentioned in the order that the murders could not be the handiwork of a single person. Justifying the conviction under section covering intent, Lal cited a number of Supreme Court orders to say that no direct evidence of common intention is necessary.
Lal also rejected the argument of the defence counsel that the crimes were carried out by “some other person(s)” who had visited Hemraj on the night of murders, which was indicated by the blood found on a wine bottle, beer bottle and soft drink 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,” he said.
The court rejected the arguments given by the defence, who had raised question marks on the allegations that the private parts of Aarushi were cleaned after her murder.
“The bedsheet was seized and sealed by Sub Inspector Dataram Naunaria. It was examined by Dr BK Mohapatra… In the examination report…it has been mentioned that…printed multi-coloured bedsheet having reddish brown stains at many places urine, semen could not be detected and designated circular area… did not yield DNA for analysis,” the 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 bedsheet 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 AGL 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.
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.
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 disagreed with the defence’s allegation.
The judge added that Mandal, who is a disinterested witness with no animosity or rancour against the accused, cannot be brushed aside as unworthy of belief. (PTI)