Interview: 5 FAQs about 'Aarushi' by Avirook Sen

Journalist turned author Avirook Sen’s second book Aarushi, published by Penguin India, has brought the Aarushi-Hemraj murder case (2008) back in the news. The double-murders took the whole country by surprise and confounded everyone at the time and it continues to do so till date. The UP police cracked the case just days after the murders and had Aarushi’s parents – Rajesh and Nupur Talwar – arrested for the crime, which the book suggests, they did not commit. Sen’s book raises some very pertinent questions over the case and the fairness of the trial and investigations. It also reveals the sheer inefficiency of the authorities who mishandled the case, out of media pressure, political intervention and what not. But Sen makes it clear in the book that he was not out there to solve the crime. He has simply stated the facts and examined the course of the investigation. [caption id=“attachment_2360400” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Ibnlive image[/caption] Will we ever know who killed Aarushi? Will Hemraj and his family ever get justice? Are Rajesh and Nupur Talwar really innocent? Is it fair to coach witnesses just because they are uneducated? How botched is the legal system in India? The social media has been buzzing with views, opinions and questions such as these ever since Sen’s book came out. People are shocked to read about how criminal justice procedures in India can go awry and they understand that the case remains unresolved. We asked Sen five questions that still remain unanswered. Excerpts below: Q. Judge Shyam Lal wrote the judgement much before the defence finished making its final arguments. His lawyer son, Ashutosh confessed that they had to use “good words” to make it read well. Can no one question Lal’s personal motive of writing the judgement beforehand? A. As Indian citizens, we are free to express the opinion, say, that a judgment is perverse, but we cannot, under our laws, attribute a motive to a judge of any court. Fair and reasonable criticism of the judiciary is a right all of us have, but we must check certain boxes in order not to be held in contempt of court. We must act in ‘good faith’; pay ‘due care and attention’ before making any remarks; and perhaps most importantly, we must demonstrate that we are speaking the truth. A higher court may (or may not) find that there was a motive, but that evaluation isn’t for us to make. Q. House-help Bharti Mandal’s first statement was that “I never touched the door”. Then she said she tried opening the door but it didn’t open, adding that she’s only saying what she has been “taught to say”. What does this mean? Why she was not probed strictly? The discrepancies in her statements must be investigated. Bharti Mandal clearly admitted in the trial court that she had been coached. The honourable judge justifies this coaching, explaining in the judgment that there is nothing wrong in tutoring witnesses who are from a lower class and uneducated. But is this okay? I await the opinion of a higher court on this. The question of re-evaluating will also be answered then. [caption id=“attachment_2359248” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] Journalist and author of ‘Aarushi’ Avirook Sen.[/caption] Q. The Narco analyses of the other two servants linked with the case – Krishna and Raj Kumar – reveal that they were present in the house and were guilty. Why did the CBI not choose to pursue this line of investigation? That really is a question for the CBI. I have detailed ‘how’ this happened in the book, but left the reader to work out ‘why’ on the facts presented. Chief among these facts are: the CBI actually failed to notice that there was direct forensic evidence against another suspect as early as November 2008. The Talwars brought this fact to light when they were given access to these forensic reports, but when they did, the CBI claimed there was a typographical error in the report. There was also immense media pressure to close the case, but the CBI, having been unable to frame charges within the stipulated period had let three other suspects go. The whereabouts of these suspects wasn’t clear. Yet the case had to be ‘closed’. The Talwars were the only ones within reach. Q. If there has been a murder, there must be a murder weapon. The CBI claimed that Aarushi was killed using a dental scalpel. Where is it? Was it produced in the court? A golf club was also involved, but not the one that was supposedly used in the murder. How can the CBI flounder over the weapons of murder? Again, a question that the agency should answer. Here are the facts: the CBI never seized a scalpel from the Talwars, neither did investigators procure one to match the wounds to the weapon. The question of a forensic examination of the scalpel, therefore never arose. As far as the golf clubs went, the CBI first claimed that one had less dirt than the others, implying it had been cleaned, and therefore the murder weapon. In the trial court, however, the agency chose a different club as the weapon of offence–one that was no cleaner or dirtier than 10 others in the set. Also, the golf kit as a whole was a compromised piece of forensic evidence. It was established in court that the seals labs had put on it after examination were broken without any sanctions–it was a case of brazen and demonstrated tampering. Q. If the Talwars didn’t do it, then who did? The facts are there in the book. Read it and make up your mind! Read an excerpt from Avirook Sen’s book, _Aarushi_