By Team Arré May. 09, 2016
The CBI closure report in the Noida double murder is the most controversial of all the documents submitted in the case. Here’s why.
The Central Bureau of Investigation submitted a closure report in December 2010, after a two-and-a-half-year probe marked by bungled investigations. The report was filed in a Ghaziabad court after the CBI expressed its inability to solve the case because the agency had not been able to collect evidence against any culprits. But the report seems to have had an intensely damaging effect on the case because it appears to be full of factual inaccuracies, blatant errors, and suppositions.
Let’s start with some of the errors in the document.
1. There is no evidence against the servants except the Narco Test which was not reliable.
Actually, there is evidence – the pillow case recovered from Krishna’s room that has Hemraj’s blood on it. Even if this was a typo, it could not have recurred several times on the seizure list as it does. A typo can occur once or twice, but to make it six times is to deliberately introduce errors.
2. Hemraj was a teetotaler.
This is untrue. Hemraj’s previous employer confirmed that he drank and bottles were found in his room.
The report’s mindboggling inaccuracies include confusion over phone records and a basic understanding of the Talwars’ house plan:
3. Aarushi’s door cannot be opened by an outsider without a key. The guard of the colony examined, has stated that no outsider was seen either going into the house of the Talwars or coming out from their house.
But the room can be entered from another door. Aarushi is also free to come out of the door at any point. For more, see the house plan here.
This reappears later in the report as well.
4. The room of Aarushi therefore, could have been opened only either by Aarushi herself from inside or by the parents of Aarushi from outside by using her keys.
Or, someone could have entered her room from a second door.
5. There was no interaction on telephone between any of the servants on that day or physical meeting between them.
A PCO call was made to Hemraj’s phone while Krishna was out to buy sports goods on the night of May 15, 2008.
Later in the report, this point makes another appearance.
6. There were no phone calls between Raj Kumar and any of the other three servants, hence there was no prior conspiracy.
We do not know the entire list of activities during the day. It’s easy for a plan to be made even through a phone call.
7. The house of Dr Durrani was locked from inside by Dr Durrani himself and it was difficult for Raj Kumar to have gotten out.
It might have been difficult, but it is not impossible.
8. Raj Kumar was not known to Vijay Mandal and had very little interaction with Krishna.
Rajkumar, Krishna, and Hemraj were all Nepali and all three had the same employer. The chances of them interacting are actually very high.
9. [Dr Rajesh Talwar] refused to identify the dead body of Hemraj when it was found on the terrace.
Dr Rajesh Talwar could not identify the body due to putrefaction.
Some of the document’s arguments are premised on suppositions such as “servants would not have had the guts to assemble in the house” in the presence of both the doctors.
10. The guard of the colony examined has stated that no outsider was seen either going into the house of the Talwars or coming out from their house.
But the guard is not stationery – can miss entries and exits to and from the colony while on rounds.
This flimsy point returns in another part of the report.
11. The Watchmen manning the gate of the Society at both the places did not see any movement of Raj Kumar on that night.
Society watchmen are mobile.
12. Servants would not have had the guts to assemble in the house of Dr Talwar, when both the doctors were present in the house.
This smacks of the report compiler’s own biases.
13. Existence of blood stains/drag marks and wiped blood stains on the staircase.
Where does the evidence of this exist?
14. Presence of a scotch bottle without glasses on the dining table of Dr Rajesh Talwar 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.
But the blood of both the victims does not implicate the parents.
15. The entire data on Aarushi’s mobile was deleted. Normal criminal would have no need to do so.
Anyone could do so with the intent to sell the phone, which was recovered later.
A couple of points in the report illustrate just how out of depth the UP police was while investigating the crime.
16. When the police arrived at the SOC on morning of 16.5.2008 they were immediately diverted by parents and sent in search for Hemraj.
There’s no reason that the police could not continue to investigate the crime.
17. 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.
The police could have broken the lock.
18. Request for non mention of rape in post-mortem proceedings.
This is completely unverified.
But the most damaging part of the report that set into motion the campaign to implicate Aarushi’s parents in the murders, was this.
19. The facts and circumstances reveal that the murder was caused by a golf stick which indicates that the assault was initiated on the basis of a grave and sudden provocation.