my take on the Double murder case

it seen clearly through the facts and circumstances that the accused had committed the double murder of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj. Aarushi was a 13-year-old girl and her parents were Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar. They had a domestic worker named Hemraj who came from Nepal to earn his living. All four of them lived in Jalvayu Vihar, Noida. Aarushi and Hemraj were killed on the midnight on 15th – 16th May 2008. The parents Rajesh and Nupur are accused for the offence of double murder.

  1. Facts in a chronological order.

it is important to analyze the facts and circumstances in a chronological order to reach to a conclusion.

On 15th May 2008 the following events happened: –

  • Nupur Talwar worked at her Hauz Khas clinic during 9 am–1 pm and she later picked up Aarushi from school at 1:30 pm and returned home (Jalvayu Vihar apartment).
  • Vandana Talwar (sister in law of Nupur) went to Nupur’s house for lunch. Later Aarushi stayed at home after her mother and aunt left the house. Her mother worked in the Fortis Hospital from 4:30 pm to 7:00 pm and she returned home by 7:30 pm.
  • Aarushi ’s father, Rajesh Talwar taught at the ITS Dental College from 8:45 am to 3:30 pm and then worked at the Hauz Khas clinic until 8:30 pm. 
  • Rajesh and Umesh Sharma (Rajesh’s Driver) returned to Jalvayu Vihar around 9:30 pm. And Umesh Sharma drove the car to Nupur’s parents’ house because Talwars did not have any parking space. Umesh Sharma returned to Jalvayu Vihar by 9:40pm and gave the car keys and Rajesh’s bag to Hemraj. Umesh Sharma says that he saw Nupur Talwar and Aarushi Talwar near the dining table.
  • Hemraj Cooked the dinner for all four of them by then. After dinner, the parents went to Aarushi ’s room and they gifted a Sony DSC-W130 digital camera. They clicked pictures with that camera till 10:10pm and the parent s returned to their room.
  • Rajesh asked Nupur to switch on the internet router that was in Aarushi ’s room at 11:00pm. Nupur went to Aarushi ’s room and she saw Aarushi reading the book named 3 mistakes of my life- by Chetan Bhagat. Nupur switched on the router and returned to her room.
  • Rajesh Talwar answered a US call from the landline and later he browsed various sites on the Internet and he visited an e-mail site at 11:41:53 pm.
  • At the midnight Aarushi ’s friend called her but no one lifted the phone and he sent her a message around 12:30am. The Internet router was working till 12:08 am.
  • Bharati Mandal rang the doorbell at 6:00am on 16th may 2008.

The post- mortem reports said that the murders of both Aarushi and Hemraj Happened between 12:00am to 1:00am. And from the above-mentioned facts in a chronological order, Umesh Sharma was the last outsider and he saw the family at 9:40pm and there was no entry or exit from the house till the next morning.  based on these facts when analyzed in a chronological order.

Some Principles of criminal jurisprudence that are relatable are as follows.

  • Last seen theory

According to this theory, in an offence, if it has been proved that the victim and the accused were seen together at the last then a question mark will be raised regarding the role of accused and since he was last seen with the victim, he will be expected to explain as to what had happened. And in the absence to give proper justification, the doubt on the accused increases to an extent that it may reach conviction of the accused. 

The last seen theory will apply ONLY when the TIME GAP between the Last seen Together and the Commission of the Offence was not much + there were other strong circumstantial evidences against the accused. In this case, this principle clearly applies in this case. There was a very little time gap between the happening of the Incident (12:00am to 1:00am) and the time the accused saw the diseased (about 11:00pm). This theory of jurisprudence is clearly applicable in this case creation a strong circumstantial evidence.

  • Beyond Reasonable doubt.

This theory says that If there is even a percent of doubt then the accused goes Scott free. That is why alibi is one of the most misused evidence to create a slight hole in the prosecution story and get the benefit of doubt. By the issue 1.2 it is clear that there is more than reasonable doubt on the accused and therefore they must be convicted for the double murder of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj[1]. This chain of circumstantial evidences proves beyond reasonable doubt that the double murder was committed by the accused[2].

1.2 That the accused tried hide the reality.

It is humbly contended before this hon’ble court that it seen clearly through the facts and circumstances that the accused had tried to hide the truth behind the murder of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj.  From the following statements of P.W.-34 Dataram Nauneria that F.I.R. was lodged by Dr. Rajesh Talwar and he had never gone to the police station Sector-20 to lodge the F.I.R. and it has falsely been deposed. It was also said in his statement that it was admitted by them to be correct but in his statements, it has not been written that Dr. Rajesh Talwar had lodged the complaint at the police station itself and he cannot give any reason as to why he filed an F.I.R.

P.W.-10 Ms. Bharti Mandal had also said in her statement that upon reaching the home the mother and father were not crying and were not even in their night dress. They did not look they were upset either. P.W.-14 Dr. Rohit Kochar has stated that when on 16.05.2008 he had gone in flat no. L-32 then he had seen that Dr. Rajesh Talwar was in red colored T-Shirt and half pant and Dr. Nupur Talwar was in white suit or gown but the clothes of both were not stained with blood.

It was also stated that the balcony door was locked and there was no key to open the door. But it was later revealed that the key was with Nupur Talwar and she hadn’t informed anybody.

Mr. Mir has criticized the evidence of Mrs. Bharti Mandal on the fulcrum that she was thoroughly tutored before stepping into the witness box and she has admitted this fact in cross-examination and therefore, no reliance can be placed upon her testimony

The reason for the accused to commit such an act can be understood through the circumstance provided by the P.W.-36 Dr. Naresh Raj to the effect that swelling of the pecker of Hemraj was because either he had been murdered in the midst of sexual intercourse or just before he was about to have the sexual intercourse which he has stated on the basis of marital experience is nothing but a medical blasphemy and this part of evidence smacks of his lack of knowledge of forensic science. In one circumstance Dr. Rajesh Talwar had noticed that the room door of Aarushi was unlocked and when he had opened, he had seen Hemraj lying on top of Aarushi which made him really angry and led to the murder. We can understand that mere absence of spermatozoa in the vaginal swab cannot rule out possibility of sexual intercourse[3].

Ms. Aarushi at the time of post-mortem examination of her dead body which conclusively demonstrates that both the accused were indulged in sexual intercourse and the bed- sheet below the pelvic region of the deceased Ms. Aarushi was found wet and no biological fluid was detected during the examination of bed-sheet; the string of trouser of Ms. Aarushi was found untied; It was also noticed that the whitish fluid was wiped and changed by the parents which could be made out by the wet stains on the bed sheet. When Bharati Mandal came to their house, initially Nupur Talwar told her that her door was locked from outside but it was not and when Bharati Mandal entered the house, instead of complaining of death of her daughter she reached to the conclusion that it was Hemraj within no time. This was a very calculative behavior of Nupur Talwar. It is pre-planned by the couple. Both the Talwars were not crying and they were not even the night dress and there was no blood on their dress. It was obvious that the parents would cling to the child when they would saw her dead but nothing of that sort happened. the couple were not in their night dress and this is strange, they had no explanation to this. They also refused to give the terrace key by saying it was not with them or giving some kind of excuse. This was to hide the death of Hemraj, which they knew about. The key was finally found in the possession of Nupur Talwar. In the Investigation it was found that the terrace was generally not locked but it was strangely locked that day. The golf stick that was missing, was found in the parapet of the roof, but why would anyone keep it there.

It is moreover strange that the accused could not give any proper and reasonable justification about the incident and Talwars did not show any interest in solving the mystery of who the murderer was and this is completely suspicious.  All these things are clearly pointing fingers towards the accused. However, it is not necessary to adduce direct evidence of the common intention. Indeed, in many cases it may be impossible to do so. The common intention may be inferred from surrounding circumstances and conduct of the parties[4].


[1] State of Haryana Vs. Bhagirath (1999) 5 SCC 96

[2] Narottam Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 1980 SCC (Crl.)

[3] Prithi Chand v. state of Himachal Pradesh 1989 SCC (Cri.)206.

[4] Rishi Dev Pandey Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 331 (3JJ)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s