Aarushi Talwar case: In a major setback to Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, the Supreme Court today accepted the plea that challenged the acquittal of the couple in the 2008 Noida double murder case. Reportedly, the application challenging the acquittal of the Talwar couple was filed in the apex court by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and also Hemraj’s wife Khumkala Banjade. The CBI has stated in its plea that the clean chit given to the couple by the court was wrong on ‘many counts.’
Khumkala Banjade had filed the plea in the month of December last year challenging the Allahabad High Court’s order. The HC on October 12, 2017 had set the dentist couple free in the Aarushi-Hemraj murder case.
The case dates back to May 16, 2008, when 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar was found dead inside her room. The Talwars recided at their Noida residence where Aarushi’s body was found with her throat slit. At first, 45-year-old house help Hemraj was suspected to have committed the crime, but his body was soon recovered from the terrace of the house a day later.
The case was handled by the police at first but was soon handed over to the CBI for probe after the arrest of the Talwars. On November 26, 2013, the couple was sentenced to life imprisonment by a CBI court in Ghaziabad. The conviction of the Talwar couple was set aside by the High Court, saying that Aarushi Talwar’s parents could not be held guilty on the basis of the evidence on record.
Earlier this year in the month of February, a notice was sent to the Registrar-General of the Allahabad High Court, CBI and the UP government by the Supreme Court after a plea was submitted by Shyam Lal, a former CBI Special Judge who had convicted the couple. Lal in his plea had moved to the SC praying that some “adverse comments/strictures” made by the High Court “against” him while acquitting the accused in the case be expunged.
According to a report by The Indian Express, he contended that “the strictures passed against the petitioner by one of the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court constituting the Division Bench, in its judgment dated 12.10.2017, are neither warranted nor are in conformity with the settled law as propounded by this Hon’ble Court.”