Much hyped case of Aarushi- Hemraj murder has drawn enormous attention in past 5 years partly because how it was portrayed in media and partly because half baked information is in public domain. Here is an attempt to share some information, which is largely rebuttle of charges which trial court judge used to base his judgement of life imprisonment to the parents of Aarushi.

1. 26 Reasons Why parents are innocent..
Aarushi – Hemraj murder case
16th May 2008 – till date …

2. Background
On the fateful night of 16th May 2008 Aarushi Talwar,
the only child of Drs. Rajesh & Nupur Talwar was
murdered and two days later their servant Hemraj‟s
dead body was found on the terrace.
Since that time the case has taken many twists and
turns. UP Police did their investigation in a completely
unprofessional manner, after which the case was
handed over to CBI. Two CBI teams investigated the
case with contrasting theories and contradictory
methods. A closure report was filed, despite the fact
that there was scientific as well as physical evidence
against the servants and the scientific reports did not
indicate the involvement of parents. Citing selfcontradictory reports and findings, when the Dr couple
protested against closure, the court using its wisdom,
summoned both Rajesh and Nupur Talwar to face trial.

3. Background
To the utter dismay of the public & media, the trial court
gave a judgment which failed to rationalize its verdict
and pronounced life imprisonment to the parents
declaring them architect of „rarest of the rare cases‟.
Thus, quashed the doctrine of justice – “Even if 99
convicts escape, not a single innocent should be
punished.”
While convicting Rajesh and Nupur Talwar on
25th November, 2013, the CBI court listed 26
circumstances that led to the finding of guilt.
Here are 26 explanations given by the parents that
were overlooked by the judge and had they been
considered, it would have proved unequivocally
that the parents are innocent.

4. 01
FINDING
That on the fateful night of May 15 and 16, 2008
both the accused were last seen with both the
deceased in Flat No. L-32, Jalvayu Vihar at
about 9.30 P.M. by Umesh Sharma, the driver of
Rajesh Talwar.
WRONG: The driver could not have known who
came to the flat after 9:30 pm. The charge fails to
take into account the proven circumstance that
there were 7, and not 4 people in the house late
that night.

5. 02
FINDING
That on the morning of May 16, 2008 at about 6.00
A.M. Aarushi was found murdered in her bedroom
which was adjacent to the bedroom of the accused
and there was only partition wall between two bedrooms.
WRONG: There was a brick wall with wooden
laminates over it. The CBI‟s own forensic and
sound expert team conducted sound tests in the
rooms with both the A/Cs on and found that nothing
could be heard in Rajesh and Nupur s room. This
report was proved in trial.

6. 03
FINDING
That the dead body of the servant Hemraj was
found lying in a pool of blood on the terrace of flat
no. L-32, Jalvayu Vihar on May 17, 2008 and the
door of terrace was found locked from inside.
WRONG: The term inside is misleading. The
terrace door was locked on the side where the
stairs went down to the 2nd floor and subsequently
to the ground floor. (All the stairs/ terraces are
outside the flat and part of the common area of the
building). This is exactly the way any killer would
lock the door and escape, using the stairs to the
ground floor.

7. 04
FINDING
That there is a close proximity between the
point of time when both the accused and the
deceased persons were last seen together alive
and the deceased were murdered in the
intervening night of May 15 and 16, 2008 and
as such the time is so small that the possibility
of any person(s) other than the accused being
the authors of the crime becomes impossible.
WRONG: The statement is purely conjectural.
The time of deaths, based on the post mortem
reports, were after 1 am, and therefore there
was enough time for an outsider to kill the two
victims.

8. 05
FINDING
That the door of Aarushi's bed-room was fitted with
automatic click-shut lock. Mahesh Kumar Mishra, the
then S.P. (City), NOIDA has deposed that when he
talked to Rajesh Talwar on May 16, 2008 in the
morning, he had told him that in the preceding night
at about 11.30 P.M. he had gone to sleep with the key
after locking the door of Aarushi's bed-room from
outside. Both the accused have admitted that door of
Aarushi's bed-room was having automatic-click shut
lock like that of a hotel, which could not be opened
from outside without key but could be opened from
inside without key. No explanation has been offered
by the accused as to how the lock of Aarushi's room
was opened and by whom.

9. 05
FINDING
WRONG: The statement that no explanation was
offered about this circumstance is untrue and false.
Nupur Talwar testified that she had used the key to
open Aarushi‟s room when she had gone to switch
on the internet router (a fact that the CBI also
concedes to in its Closure Report) and had
inadvertently left the key on the keyhole, when she
came out of the room. The CBI subjected both the
parents to extensive scientific and investigative
tests and no deception on lie-detector test or
evidence of any involvement in the Brain Mapping
Test and Narco Analysis Tests was found.

10. 06
FINDING
That the internet remained active in the night of
the gory incident suggesting that at least one of
the accused remained awake.
WRONG: A CBI telecom witness testified in court
that the pattern of activity on the fateful night was
similar to that seen from 6 am in the morning of
16th May to 1 pm that day, a time when the house
was overrun with policemen. The CBI had itself
discredited this circumstance as unreliable in its
Closure Report.

11. 07
FINDING
That there is nothing to show that an outsider(s) came
inside the house in the said night after 9.30 P.M.
WRONG: Police diaries record the seizure of a bottle of wine,
bottles of beer and a bottle of pop (Sprite) from Hemraj‟s
room. A policeman, the CBI s own witness, testified that
Hemraj‟s bed had the imprint of three people sitting on it, that
the bathroom looked like it had been used multiple times.
Clearly, Hemraj had invited outsiders into his room that
fateful night. Senior journalist Nalini Singh has said that a
CBI officer had asked her which songs were being played on
her news channel on the night of 15h-16th May 2008.
Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal, the three earlier
suspects, had in their Narco-analysis Tests confirmed to have
assembled in Hemraj‟s room that night where they heard
certain songs (described by all of them) on Nepali Channel
One. Nalini Singh confirmed that her Channel had played
those songs at exactly the time, mentioned by the suspects
in their Narco Tests. Inexplicably Ms Singh, was not allowed
to appear as a witness in the case.

12. 08
FINDING
That there was no disruption in the supply of
electricity in that night.
RIGHT: How does this prove anyone‟s guilt?

13. 09
FINDING
That no person was seen loitering near the flat
in suspicious circumstances during that night.
This reasoning is flawed because no one saw the
Talwar couple drag Hemraj‟s body to the terrace or
the Talwars dispose off blood-stained bed-sheets,
clothes and the weapon in the early hours, as
alleged. Also, two of the three servants were not
outsiders but lived in the complex, a few yards
away.

14. 10
FINDING
That there is no evidence of forcible entry of
any outsider(s) in the flat in the night of
occurrence.
WRONG: The reasoning is flawed as it does not
discuss the possibility of a friendly entry. The three
people named by the CBI as suspects (Krishna
Thadarai, Vijay Mandal and Raj Kumar) were
Hemraj‟s friends.

15. 11
FINDING
That there is no evidence of any larcenous act
in the flat
WRONG: There can be several motives to murder.
The CBI itself conceded that it was not able to
discern any credible motive for the murders.
Robbery, as is being suggested need not be a
motive for the murders.

16. 12
FINDING
That in the morning of May 16, 2008 when the maid
came to the flat for the purpose of cleaning and
mopping, a false pretext was made by NupurTalwar
that door might have been locked from outside by
the servant Hemraj although it was not locked or
latched from outside.
WRONG: Bharti, the maid, said that when she
entered through the first grill door (which was
unlocked and unlatched) by pushing it, she found
the second grill door, adjacent to the main wooden
door of the flat, latched from outside. She unlatched
it and entered the flat.

17. 13
FINDING
That the maid Bharti Mandal has nowhere stated
that when she came inside the flat both the
accused were found weeping.
WRONG: Bharti, in her evidence to court, clearly
mentions that both parents were crying when she
came inside the flat. Other neighbours and visitors
have also testified on the same lines.

18. 14
FINDING
That from the testimony of Bharti Mandal it is manifestly
clear that when she reached the flat and talked to
Nupur Talwar, then at that time she had not complained
about the murder of her daughter and rather she told the
maid deliberately that Hemraj might have gone to fetch
milk from Mother dairy after locking the wooden door from
outside. This lack of spontaneity is relevant under section
8 of the Evidence Act.
WRONG: Nupur Talwar was still in her room, waiting for
Hemraj to open the door as he normally did. When Hemraj
did not open the door, Nupur, got up on hearing the door
bell ring the second time, walked towards the main
entrance, glanced into Hemraj‟s room and found him not
there. She assumed, as any one would in these
circumstances, that he had gone out. She hadn‟t as yet
discovered that Aarushi had been murdered, so there was
no question of considering that possibility.

19. 15
FINDING
That the clothes of both the accused were not found
soaked with blood. It is highly unnatural that parents of
deceased Aarushi will not cling to and hug her on
seeing her murdered.
WRONG: What has not been considered was that their
clothes were seized by the police one month later, on 16th of
June 2008, by which time they could have been washed and
dried. Had the police wanted to seize their clothes on the day
of the Murder, nothing and no one stopped them.
Notwithstanding that, their clothes were tested and Aarushi‟s
blood was found on them. The fact of the matter is, that they
had hugged their dead child and that is why her blood was
detected on their clothes although, it was recovered so late.
But their clothes did not have Hemraj‟s blood on them and
this alone eliminates them as accused in the case.

20. 16
FINDING
That no outsider(s) will dare to take Hemraj to the
terrace in severely injured condition and thereafter
search out a lock to be placed in the door of the terrace.
WRONG: Again this is pure conjecture, not evidence. No
one is talking of rank outsiders here, but people known
to Hemraj. There is no evidence that Hemraj was killed
in Aarushi‟s room, or that he was dragged upstairs.
Hemraj‟s postmortem report says that his slippers were
found along with the body, suggesting he walked
upstairs. The lock and key would have been available to
the killer as Hemraj was entrusted with all the keys, a
fact established in court records.

21. 17
FINDING
That it is not possible that an outsider(s) after
committing the murders will muster courage to take
Scotch whisky knowing that the parents of the
deceased Aarushi are in the nearby room and his top
priority will be to run away from the crime scene
immediately.
WRONG: How is this possibility discounted? Not
through evidence. The CBI claimed that Rajesh gulped
whisky straight from the Ballantine Scotch bottle, later
found on the Dining table. A DNA expert took samples
from the neck and mouth of the bottle and found no
evidence of Rajesh‟s DNA on them. His fingerprints
were not found on the bottle either. No witness or police
personnel found him smelling of alcohol the next
morning.

22. 18
FINDING
That no outsider(s) will bother to take the body of
Hemraj to the terrace. Moreover, a single person
cannot take the body to the terrace.
WRONG: Again this is not based on evidence but on ifs
and buts, all of which is purely conjectural. Hemraj was
not dragged to the terrace and the CBI‟s attempt to
prove it, collapsed in Trial. Besides, the CBI had earlier
named three young men as suspects who were capable
of doing all of this and more.

23. 19
FINDING
That the door of the terrace was never locked, prior to
the occurrence but it was found locked in the morning
of May 16, 2008 and the accused did not give the key
of the lock to the police despite being asked to give the
same.
WRONG: It has been proved in trial that one set of the
keys of the house and the terrace remained with
Hemraj. It has come on record, that the Police was
asked to break open the lock on the door, but the police
personnel concerned forgot to do so. Ordinarily, Rajesh
was unlikely to know where all the keys were. Numb
with shock and grief, there was no possibility of his
remembering where the terrace keys were. The Police
accepts that neither Rajesh nor any one else in the
family prevented them from breaking the lock.

24. 20
FINDING
That the accused have taken the plea in the statements
under section 313 Cr.P.C. that about 8-10 days before
the occurrence painting of cluster had started and the
navies used to take water from water tank placed on
the terrace of the flat and then Hemraj had started
locking the door of the terrace and the key of that lock
remained with him. If it was so then it was not easily
possible for an out-sider to find out the key of the lock
of terrace door.
WRONG: All this proves is, that Hemraj had access to
the Terrace door. His friends, too, knew the topography,
as they lived in the immediate vicinity, so they could just
as easily have committed the crime and locked the
terrace door from the bunch of keys that were with
Hemraj.

25. 21
FINDING
That if an outsider(s) may have committed the
crime in question after locking the door of terrace
and had gone out of the flat then the outer most
mesh door or middle mesh door must have been
found latched from outside.
This was exactly what was found. The outer grill
door was never locked. The middle iron grill door
was latched from the out-side, thereby denying the
Talwars access to the outside world.

26. 22
FINDING
That the motive of commission of the crime has
been established.
WRONG: The motive of the crime was sought to be
established based on a report called Crime Scene
Reconstruction, scribed by one Dr. R S Dahiya. Dr. Dahiya,
based his findings, after seeing photographs of the crime
scene, and information supplied by the CBI. His Report was
based on the hypothesis that Hemraj‟s blood was found on
Aarushi‟s pillow, therefore they were both attacked and killed
in Aarushi‟s room (by the father). The testimony of CBI‟s own
witness, forensic scientist B.K. Mahapatra, established that
Hemraj‟s blood was not found anywhere in Aarushi‟s room.
Therefore, the cheap and vulgar motive that the CBI
subsequently tried to establish, (about the father seeing his
daughter and the domestic help in a compromising position)
and attacked them, was negated by the fact that no blood of
Hemraj was found in Aarushi‟s room.

27. 23
FINDING
That it is not possible that after commission of the
crime an outsider(s) will dress-up the crime scene.
WRONG: What is the evidence that the crime scene
was dressed up? The entire flat was subjected to
special UV Light examination, to see whether there
were any blood marks or dragging marks inside or
outside that could have been cleaned. Nothing was
detected. The only dressing up that took place were the
clandestine shifts in the CBI Version. The post-mortem
doctor, who found no abnormalities in Aarushi‟s private
parts
(Nothing
Abnormal
Detected)
suddenly
remembered a host of abnormalities 18 months later.
So who is dressing up the case?

28. 24
FINDING
That golf-club No.5 was thrown in the loft after com
mission of the crime and the same was produced
after many months by the accused Rajesh Talwar.
WRONG: No witness has said that a golf club was
thrown into the loft. This statement clearly presumes
that golf club No. 5 was the weapon of offence after the
CBI said it had less dirt on it than others. A report by the
CFSL demonstrates that this golf club was among the
dirtier ones and had not been cleaned. Therefore, this
circumstance has no merit. The CBI itself conceded that
none of the golf clubs had blood or DNA to tie it to the
murders. Also, no one asked for the Golf set from the
Talwars and when asked, it was produced the very next
day. No attempt was made by them to conceal or throw
away the set, which is hardly likely if it was the murder
weapon.

29. 25
FINDING
That pattern of head and neck injuries of both the
accused persons are almost similar in nature and
can be caused by golf-club and scalpel
respectively.
WRONG: Presumptive and not based on any evidence. The
post mortem doctors accepted in court that the CBI had
never shown them the golf club or any scalpel. Both
accepted in court, that they, as part of an eight-member
expert committee of forensic experts, set up at the All India
Institute of Medical Sciences, to review the Post Mortem
findings, had confirmed in writing that the most likely weapon
of offence used in the crime was a Khukri (that caused both
the blunt and the sharp injuries on the victims). Krishna‟s
blood stained khukri had been recovered. Forensic expert Dr.
R.K. Sharma testified that the blunt injuries could not have
been caused by a golf club and provided literature to
substantiate his statement. He further testified that it was
near impossible to cause the sharp edged deep neck injuries
with a dental scalpel.

30. 26
FINDING
That the accused Rajesh Talwar was a member of the
Golf-Club NOIDA and golf clubs were produced by him
before the CBI and scalpel is used by the dentists and
both the accused are dentists by profession.
The golf clubs were provided by the Talwars to the CBI. No
blood, no DNA or biological fluid was found on them. A dental
scalpel was shown to the court, to establish that the CBI
charge, that it caused the deep neck injuries, was ludicrous.
The defence, through a demonstration in court, showed that
no surface of the golf stick could have produced injuries
similar to those shown in the post mortem report. As for the
dental scalpel, it is too small in size (0.7cm) to inflict such
deep gashes. As a matter of fact, as the AIIMS EXPERT
COMMITTEE HAD STATED IN ITS REPORT, THE KHUKRI
WAS THE MOST LIKELY WEAPON USED IN THE CRIME. A
Khukri, it may be noted has a heavy blunt side, and a sharp
knife like side. The same weapon could have caused both
the injuries on both the deceased. THE BLOOD STAINED
KHUKHRI RECOVERED FROM KRISHNA‟S ROOM WAS
NEVER SENT TO CDFD FOR ANALYSIS.

31. EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE IGNORED BY
CBI !!
November 2008: Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD) Hyderabad
issues report that Krishna's pillow cover has Hemraj's blood.
December 2010: This fact is missing from the Closure Report filed by CBI.
February 2011: Talwars get access to the report, upon being chargesheeted. They
immediately
mention this in Allahabad High Court.
March 8th, 2011: CBI tells the court the lab made a Typographical Error in
labelling
the pillow cover. It provides no documents to the court on affidavit to back this
assertion.
March 18th, 2011: The High Court accepts CBI's explanation.
CBI seeks a clarification from CDFD.
March 24th, 2011: An unsigned and unstamped document from CDFD is
produced
that says, yes, a 'Typographical Error' has occurred.
The 'TYPO ERROR' document was produced:
2 years after the error was committed
1 month after Talwars mentioned about this explosive evidence in court
2 weeks after the CBI told the Court that there was a Typographical Error
1 week after Allahabad High Court judgement had accepted the Typo Error

32. EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE IGNORED BY
CBI !!
Explosive evidence available with the CBI in the form of
a blood stained pillow cover belonging to Krishna and
recovered from his room, was forensically proved to
have the blood and DNA of the deceased Hemraj.
When it was brought to their notice, the CBI conducted
a massive cover up exercise and then claimed that the
DNA report was based on a Typographical Error !
The one piece of clinching evidence that could have
determined the fate of this trial was overlooked by the
CBI and the court.
Is this not a MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE?

33. Don’t wait for this to happen to your
near and dear.
Do your bit.
PLEASE SHARE THESE FACTS WITH ALL
YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY