Aarushi trial: Doctors committed ‘medical blasphemy’, says defence

Arguing that the “false case” against the Talwars was built by the CBI in the span of a month in late 2009, the defence today questioned the credibility of the testimonies of two doctors it said were crucial to the “fundamental edifice” of the prosecution’s case — presence of Hemraj in Aarushi’s room and that acting as ‘grave and sudden provocation’ for the Rajesh and Nupur Talwars to kill their daughter and domestic help. The CBI’s re-recording of statements of the two doctors one-and-a-half years after the crime was committed and less than two weeks apart, argued the defence, was only to “fortify” the ‘sudden and grave provocation’ theory that was put on record for the first time in a ‘crime-scene analysis’ report submitted, curiously enough, less than a month later. (Read full report here ) [caption id=“attachment_1195003” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Aarushi Talwar. Ibnlive[/caption] Describing the testimonies of Sunil Dohre and Naresh Raj, who conducted the post-mortems on Aarushi and Hemraj respectively, as being tantamount to ‘medical blasphemy’, the defence questioned the basis of their medical opinions that Aarushi’s private parts were ‘cleaned’ and that swelling of Hemraj’s genitals showed that he was killed while in ‘act’ – both testimonies crucial to the prosecution ‘sudden and grave’ murder theory. Arguing that Dohre’s statement to the court should be rejected as ‘unreliable’, defence lawyer Tanveer Ahmed Mir asked why the doctor had failed to report such a crucial observation — of Aarushi’s private parts being ‘cleaned’ — in any of the five statements he had previously made during investigation, starting with the Aarushi’s post-mortem report, followed by a series of statements he made first to the Noida police, then to an officer of the CBI (who took over the investigation), then to the AIIMS expert committee report he was a member of, and then, for the fifth time, to another CBI officer in October 2008. “The improved theory on Aarushi’s vaginal status was given by Dohre one-and-a-half years after he had conducted the post-mortem on Aarushi’s body and after he had five previous opportunities to make this finding known. Was Dohre’s statement of 30 September, 2009, extracted by the CBI to support the theory that Hemraj was in Aarushi’s room and to make an allegation against the Talwars that they indulged in post-mortem vaginal cleaning of Aarushi, for which, prior to 30 September, 2009, there was not an iota of evidence in either in the Noida police investigation or the CBI investigation that followed?” argued Mir. The defence further raised doubts about the medical basis for Dohre’s testimony on the state in which he found Aarushi’s private parts and the conclusions he drew from it by challenging it with the expert opinion of a gynaecologist who testified as a defence witness. The ‘sudden and grave provocation’ theory was further sought to be ‘fortified’ by the CBI, the defence argued, by Naresh Raj’s sensational testimony in court in which he, for the first time (having given four statements previously to investigating authorities), concluded that genitals on Hemraj’s body were swollen because he had been killed just before or during the act of sexual intercourse. It may be recalled that Raj had performed the post-mortem on Hemraj’s body a day after he had been murdered. Hemraj’s body was found a day later on the terrace in a heavily putrefied state. It is an established medical fact that putrefaction causes swelling of the body and its parts. Describing Raj’s testimony as ‘medical blasphemy’, the defence lawyer said, “When asked during cross-examination what the basis of his conclusion on the swollen genitals was, the doctor said, ‘I am married and my explanation is based on my experience. But in support of this conclusion I cannot cite any medical book, forensic science, medical journal or any documentary evidence.’ If this is not medical blasphemy, what is?” Urging the court to issue strictures against the doctors for their testimony, Mir said, “Whatever be the fate of the case, the court will not permit any qualified forensic to make a statement of the nature made by Raj and Dohre. Let strictures and strong observations be made against these doctors by this court.” Further, challenging the CBI’s theory that Hemraj was killed in Aarushi’ room, the defence argued that DNA, fingerprint and serology experts who had examined the crime scene and the clothes and undergarments of the victims had found no traces of Hemraj’s blood or fingerprints in Aarushi’s room or found blood or bodily fluid of Hemraj on Aarushi and vice versa. (Aarushi’s blood group was B and Hemraj’s AB) “There is no scientific or biological evidence that Hemraj and Aarushi were together,” defence lawyer Mir told the court relying on testimonies of prosecution witnesses BK Mahapatra, DNA and biologicial expert from Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), S PR Prasad senior technical examiner with Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD), Suresh Singla, serology expert from CFSL and fingerprint experts from the Noida Police and the CBI. Concluding his arguments challenging the prosecution’s ‘sudden and grave provocation’ murder theory, Mir said, “The grave and sudden provocation theory as developed by MS Dahiya and complemented by Dohre and Raj, which is the fundamental edifice on which the prosecution’s case stands as far as the way the two were murdered is in strong shadow of doubt. If this circumstance is disbelieved, it will have a rippling effect on all other evidence that appears in court.” Final arguments by the defence will continue on 28 October. Dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar are on trial for murders of their daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj. On 16 May, 2008, 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar was found murdered in her apartment in Noida. A day later, the body of domestic help Hemraj was discovered on the terrace of the three-storey apartment. The Talwars were at home on the night the murders were committed. By the CBI’s own admission there is no forensic evidence that connects the couple to the murders. Relying entirely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has argued that the Talwars tried to ‘mislead’ the investigation and that they ‘destroyed’ evidence. The prosecution has relied largely on the ‘conduct’ of the Talwars as key circumstantial evidence against them.