New Delhi, Nov 30 (): Aarushi–Hemraj murder case would be reopened with an appeal to be filed in Allahabad High Court.
The dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar were sentenced to life for the murder of Aarushi, their 14-year-old daughter and domestic help Hemraj in May 2008. Tanveer Ahmed Mir and a battery of lawyers have narrowed down on three points as the basis of their appeal to the Allahabad High Court.
Lawyers said they are yet to decide when they would file the appeal. Going through 204-page verdict , lawyers have focused on three major points that they would contest.
In the judgement, additional sessions judge had put the onus of providing proof on the accused. Since there were only four people in the house and two are dead, the burden is on the other two who are alive to furnish explanations on the happenings of the night, said the court.
This goes against the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kali Ram versus the state of Himachal Pradesh, 1973 where the court said that in a murder case, the burden of providing proof can never be on the accused. Meir said since there were no arguments on this topic during the trial and during final arguments, he had asked the prosecution in front of the judge if it was their stance that the burden of proof was on the accused and the prosecution replied the burden was entirely on them and no arguments followed.
CBI has said that they have no clue as to what happened on the night and, therefore, the accused must explain. CBI put forth a methodology, and it is their job to prove the chronology of events, he said.
The second point is that maid Bharti Mandal’s admission that she had been tutored by CBI was ignored by the court. As per the Supreme Court ruling any admission which can give the highest punishment should be of great value.
Bharti Mandal’s statement that when she tried to open the door on the morning of May 16, she found it was shut. That was used to buttress ‘no-outsider’ theory. She later admitted that she was narrating whatever she had been coached. From saying that she could not open the door to saying later that she tried to push the door open has been crucial to the case.
The third point is an order that Hemraj’s DNA had been found on the pillow of Aarushi. It was proved to be wrong, the pillow was exhibited in court during the testimony of Dr BK Mahapatra , and the tags attached to the exhibit showed that it was from Hemraj’s room and not that of Aarushi. Using this the counsel maintained that there was no proof of Hemraj’s DNA or blood in Aarushi’s room.