M A I N   N E W S

Circumstantial evidence: Court
Sandeep Yadav/TNS

New Delhi, February 9
The balance tilted against the Talwars after the CBI court acknowledged “overwhelming circumstantial evidence in the closure report against the couple”.

A glance at circumstantial evidence against Talwars, as per the CBI closure report:

• Dimensions of the striking surface of the golf club used by Rajesh Talwar matches the dimensions of injury found on both Aarushi and Hemraj. The club, seized almost a year after the crime, is believed to have been washed as no biological fluid was found on it. It was found cleaner than other golf sticks of the set.
• The scene of the crime was heavily dressed and could only be done by the occupants of the house.
• No evidence to suggest forcible entry into the flat. Only the family members and Hemraj were last seen in the house before the crime and the couple spotted first after the incident.
• Presence of blood of both the victims on a scotch bottle on Talwar’s dining table. The CBI believes an intruder would not return to the flat to take liquor after the killings.
• After Hemraj’s body was discovered on the roof of the flat and Dr Rajesh Talwar called in to identify him, he failed to do so.
• When the police arrived at the crime scene, they were immediately diverted by the parents and sent to search for Hemraj.
• Rajesh Talwar requested non-mention of rape in post-mortem proceedings. Just before the post-mortem of Aarushi was to begin, Dr Dinesh Talwar (Rajesh’s brother) made Dr Sunil Dohre (a family friend) speak to someone over the phone under the impression that he was talking to Dr Dogra, Head of Forensics at AIIMS. This was a clear attempt to influence the doctor doing the post-mortem, as per the report.