Quash and bail in criminal cases.

Details of the closure report submitted by the CBI in lower court.

4. Having investigated into the matter for a considerable length of time, the CBI submitted a closure report on 29.12.2010.  The reasons depicted in the closure report indicated the absence of sufficient evidence to prove the alleged offences against the accused Dr. Rajesh Talwar, beyond reasonable doubt.  A summary of the reasons recorded in the said report itself, are being extracted hereunder:

“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.

iv. 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.

v. 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 any

blood stain or DNA of victims from golf stick to directly link it to

the crime.

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 16^th  morning itself.  In spite of best efforts, the

fingerprint(s) 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.

ix. The exact sequence of events between (in the intervening night of

15-16/05/2008) 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.

Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar, individually, in the

commission of crime.

x. 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.

xi. There is no evidence to explain the presence of Hemraj’s mobile

in Punjab after murder.

xii. The 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 the 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(s) 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.”