Arushi Murdar Case English

8/2/2019 Arushi Murdar Case English

1/22

http://www.supremelaw.in/2012/02/tn-godavarman-thirumulpad-vs-union-of.htmlOneindiahindi------NoidadoublemurdercaseFromWikipedia,thefreeencyclopediaJumpto:navigation,searchWhethertomakethe|reason=mandatoryforthe{{cleanup}}templateisbeingdiscussed.Seetherequestforcommenttohelpreachaconsensus.

ThisarticlemayrequirecleanuptomeetWikipedia'squalitystandards.(Considerusingmorespecificcleanupinstructions.)Pleasehelpimprovethisarticleifyoucan.Thetalkpagemaycontainsuggestions.(March2011)Unbalancedscales.svg

Theneutralityofthisarticleisdisputed.Pleaseseethediscussiononthetalkpage.Pleasedonotremovethismessageuntilthedisputeisresolved.(March2011)Globeicon

Theexamplesandperspectiveinthisarticleorsectionmighthaveanextensivebiasordisproportionalcoveragetowardsoneormorespecificregions.Pleaseimprovethisarticleordiscusstheissueonthetalkpage.

OnMay16,2008,AarushiTalwar,a14-year-oldClassIXstudentofDelhiPublicSchoolinNoidaandthedaughterofasuccessfuldentistcouple,wasfounddeadwithherthroatslitinherparents'homeatJalvayuViharin[Noida,UttarPradesh].Suspicioninitiallyfellonthefamily'slive-inmanservantHemraj,whowa

smissing.Noidapolicedeclaredhimtheprimesuspect.Howeverthefollowingday,followingatrailofblood,intheTalwar'shome,policefoundthedeadbodyHemrajontheterrace.Afteradisorganizedinvestigation,thepolicearrestedDr.RajeshTalwar,thefatherofthedeceasedgirlonMay23,2008,charginghimwithhavingcommittedthedoublemurder.HeconfessedtokillingAarushiandHemrajtothePoliceonthenightofhisarrestbutlaterretractedhisconfession.Hiswife,Dr.NupurTalwar(ArushiTalwarsmother,runsadentalclinic),accusedtheNoidapoliceofframinghim,andrequestedUttarPradeshchiefministerMayawatitotransferthecasetotheCentralBureauofInvestigation(CBI).Thiswasdoneatthebehestofthemediaattentiononthecase.FurthermoretherewerereportsofthecasebeinghandedovertotheCBI.

TheCentralBureauofInvestigationtookovertheinvestigationintothemurders

ofAarushiandHemrajonJune1,2008,forminga25-memberteaminanattempttocrackthecase.SoonaftertheCBItookoverthecase,UttarPradeshchiefministerMayawatigavetransferorderstoseniorpoliceofficerswhowerepartoftheSpecialInvestigationTeam(SIT)thathadpreviouslybeeninchargeoftheinvestigation,includingtheNoidaSeniorSuperintendentofPolice,SatishGanesh,andMeerutInspectorGeneral,GurdarshanSingh.andfamilyInaddition,thedeputationofCBIofficerArunKumar,formerlyamemberoftheUttarPradeshPolice,whowasinchargeoftheinvestigationalsoendedinJuly,2008.[1]Contents[hide]

1SignificanceoftheCase2CBI:Gettingthere

3CBIInvestigation4TimelineoftheCase5References6Seealso

[edit]SignificanceoftheCase

Thecasereceivednationwideattention,andhasbecomesymptomaticofwhatmostpeoplebelievearerecentunsavourytendenciesintheIndianmedia,suchassensationalism,theurgeto"overkill"andtocarryoutapublictrial-by-media.[2]


2/22

TheUnionMinisterforWomenandChildDevelopment,RenukaChowdhury,condemnedthepoliceforwhatshecalledthe"characterassassination"ofachildvictimandcalledforacommissionoflegalexpertstoinvestigatewhetherspecificlegislationexistedorneededtopassedinordertoallowfilingofdefamationsuitsagainsttheNoidapolice,agovernmentagency.[3]Inaddition,thefocusby24-hourcablenewsonspeculativeaspectsofthepersonallivesofthefatherandhisdeaddaughter,andthemediafrenzythatcompromisedtheprivacyofthefamiliesinvolvedinthecasehascausedcomparisonstobemadetotheJonBenetRamseycaseintheUnitedStates.[4]Thecasehasalsoattractedalotofpublicattentionasabizarrewhodunit,[5]withtheCBIreportingthattheagencyhadbeenreceivingalargenumberoftelephonecallsfrommembersofthegeneralpublic,givinginvestigatorsideasandadviceonhowtosolvethecase.[6]Inaddition,thestoryhittheblogosphereinamajorwaywithmanyIndianbloggersavidlyandenthusiasticallybloggingaboutthemurdermystery[7]

Theremainderofthisarticle(contentappearingbelow)mayrequirecleanuptomeetWikipedia'squalitystandards.Pleaseimprovethisarticleifyoucan,andmoveorremovethisnoticeifappropriate.(July2010)[edit]CBI:Gettingthere

Thisarticlecontainstoomanyortoo-lengthyquotationsforanencyclopedicentry.Pleasehelpimprovethearticlebyeditingittotakefactsfromexcessivelyquotedmaterialandrewritethemassourcedoriginalprose.ConsidertransferringdirectquotationstoWikiquote.(July2010)[edit]CBIInvestigation

CBIinvestigatorschargedtheNoidapolicewithashoddyinvestigation,which,itclaimed,hadresultedinthedestructionof90%oftheevidenceonthecrimescene.

AsidefromnotcapturingthefingerprintsonthewhiskybottlesinHemraj'sroom,thepoliceallowedthemediatofreelyroamthecrimesceneratherthanrestrictingaccesstotheflat.

Inaddition,thepolicealloweddoctors,notspecificallytrainedinforensicpathology,toconducttheautopsiesofHemrajandAarushi.Whileitisestablishedproceduretoliftfingerprints(ofbothmurderersandvictims)fromtheskinofthevictims.[8]thedoctorsentrustedwiththeautopsiesneglectedtocallforensicscientiststoliftfingerprintsfromthecadavers.OnAugust11,2008,the

CBIreportedthatithadevidencepointingtothepresenceofafifthpersoninthehouseatthetimeofthemurders,asfingerprintsnotmatchinganyofthesuspectsoroccupantsofthehousewerefoundonthewhiskybottles.

ExpertsattheAllIndiaInstituteofMedicalSciences(AIIMS),whoareworkingcloselywiththeCBI,haveraisedquestionsoveroneentryinArushispostmortemreport.Thereport,datedMay16andpreparedbySunilDorefortheNoidapolice,mentionswhitishdischargefromthevaginawhichAIIMSdoctorssaywasntinvestigated.TheyhaveraisedthisissuewiththeCBI.

Itisthedutyofthedoctorsandtheinvestigatingofficertocollectallbiologicalevidence.Asperlaw,itismandatorytowriteaboutitinthepostmortemreportwhichislegalevidence.Butinthiscasenofurtherinvestigationwasdo

neontheevidencethattheygotfromnaturalorifices,SudhirGupta,associateprofessor,forensicmedicine,AIIMS,toldTheIndianExpress.

Thepostmortemreportsaysthatvariousorgansincludingstomachwithcontents,samplesfromsmallintestine,gallbladder,spleenandonekidneywerepreserved,sealedandsentforexaminationtoruleoutpoisoning.

However,thereportdoesntmentionwhetheravaginalswabwassentforfurtherinvestigation,saidGupta.Thewhitishdischargecouldbeattributedtoseveralcauses,fromafungalinfection,commonatthisage,toevensexualassault.Butina


3/22

murdercase,thiswasaseriousbiologicalfindingwhichrequireddeliberation.Nosuchtypeofbiologicalevidencewascollectedandsealedbythedoctorwhopreparedtheautopsy,headded.

Sourcesintheagencyemphasisedthatunlikeinan"unoccuredcase"whereaclosurereportisfiledbecausetheincidentunderinvestigationwasnotfoundtohaveoccurred,thereportfiledintheAarushicasedoesnotshutthepossibilityofrenewedinvestigationifanew,strongevidencecomesup.PinakiMishra,DrTalwar'scounsel,stronglyreactedtotheclosurereport,callingitapackofinnuendos."Thisisthemostunfairverdictthatcouldhavebeengiven.They(Talwars)arebeingpronouncedguiltyuntilprovedinnocent.Withouthavingfiledachargesheet,theCBIiscondemningthemtolivethelifeofaguilty.IhavenodoubtthattheentireinvestigationisderailedbytakingthelineofUPpolice-justdamnthemwithoutevidence,"hesaid.

TheCBIdoesnotdebunkthedefenceofTalwarscompletely,withsourcesacknowledgingthattheprobefailedtoestablishthemotivebehindthemurder.TheyalsosaidthedummyrunconductedbythemtoverifyTalwars'claimthattheycouldnothaveheardofwhatwashappeninginthenextroombecauseofnoisefromtheirAC,showsthattheycouldhavesleptthroughthecrime.Italsosaysthenarcotestsrunonthecoupleshowonly"minordeceptions".Butthereportlists"circumstantialevidence"tosaywhytheycontinuetotreatDrRajeshTalwarastheprimesuspectinthecase.Sourcesclaimthe"circumstantialevidence"issostrongthatDrTalwarcouldhavebeenchargesheetedhadhenotbeenaparent.Thecl

osurereportsaysthecrimescenewas"dressedup"beforethepolicewascalledsomethingthatisnotassociatedwitharegularcriminal.

SourcessaidthatNoidapolice'sfailuretosecurethecrimescenewasanotherreasonwhytheagencywasleftonlywithcircumstantialevidence.BloodstainonthewhiskybottlefoundinTalwars'housedidnotmatchthesamplesofeitherAarushiorHemraj.ThereportassertsthatbothAarushiandHemrajdiedofinjuriesfromabluntweapon,andthatthecutsontheirneckwereinflictedwhentheywerealreadydead.[edit]TimelineoftheCase

May16,2008

AarushiTalwar,daughterofadentistcouple,founddeadwithherthroatslitinthebedroomofherflatinJalvayuVihar.BasedontheTalwars'claim,missingdomestichelpHemraj(Nepalesenational)suspectedofmurder.

May17,2008

Hemraj'sbodyfoundontheterraceofTalwar'shouse.NoidaSector-20policeStationOfficer(S.O.)DataramNauneriashiftedforlapsesininvestigations.Autopsyreportrulesoutsexualassault.

May18,2008

DelhiPolicejoinmurderprobe;policesaymurdercommittedbya"doctororabutcher".

May22,2008

Familyundersuspicion;honorkillingangleprobedPolicequizAarushi'sclosefriend,whomshespoketo688timesinthe45daysprecedinghermurder.


4/22


5/22

ilbythespecialmagistrate,CBIcourts,Ghaziabad.

June27,2008

KrishnatakentoTalwars'residencebytheCBIandthereafterproducedbeforethespecialmagistrate,wherehisbailpleaisrejectedonceagain.TheTalwars'familyfriendsDuranis'NepalesedomestichelpRajkumararrestedonthesuspicionofinvolvementinthemurder.WashedT-shirtswithfainthumanbloodstainsseizedandsentforDNAmatching.However,theDuranis(doctorsthemselves)maintainthatthestainscouldbefromtheboilsthatRajkumarhadonhisbody.Rajkumarhadalreadybeensubjectedtopolygraphtest,psychologicalassessment,brainmappingandnarcoanalysisatFSL,GandhinagarfromJune23toJune26,2008.

June28,2008

Rajkumarproducedbeforespecialmagistrate,CBIcourt,Ghaziabadandissenttopolicecustodyfor14days.

June30,2008

Krishna'slawyerapproachesaGhaziabadcourtforbail.Bailisrefusedasthecourtthatwasapproacheddoesnothavesufficientpowersinthiscase.CBIjointdirectorinchargeoftheinvestigation,ArunKumar,isrecalledt

ohisoriginalcadreinUttarPradesh.

June31,2008

NewschannelAAJTAK,airsreportsthatVijayMandal,anewface,isalsoinvolvedintheNoidadoublemurder.

July2,2008

Dr.RajeshTalwarisproducedbeforespecialmagistrate,CBIcourt,Ghaziabadagain.HisbailpleaisrejectedandhisjudicialcustodyextendedtillJuly11,2008.CBIsaysheisstillamongthesuspects.

July3,2008

TheSupremecourtofIndiarejectsapublicinterestlitigation(PIL)casechallengingtheadministrationofnarco-analysistestontheaccused.AbenchheadedbyJusticeAltamasKabirrefusestohearthepetion,asthepetitioner,alawyers'body,wasanunregisteredentity.

July6,2008

AnEnglishdaily[9]revealsthatonthenightthemurderswerecommitted,thecoupleDr.RajeshandDr.Nupurlefttheirflataroundmidnightandcamebackaround5AM.Theywereatahighsocietypartyforwhich12suiteswerebookedinaposhSouthDelhihotel.

July7,2008

Dr.NupurTalwarrefusestheallegationsregardingtheirabsenceonthenightofthemurders.Shealsoexpressesherintentiontotakelegalactionagainstthemediahouse.CBIreleasesanofficialstatementontheirsite,stating,"AsectionofmediahasreportedquotingCBIsourcesthatDr.RajeshTalwarandDr.NupurTalwarwerenotpresentintheirhouseonthenightof15thMay,2008andmorethanadozenroomswerebookedinahotelinDelhi.Itisclarifiedthatthenewsitemi


6/22

sspeculativeandnottrue.Investigationofthecaseisprogressingdiligently."SomeotherTVchannelsdebatethemeritsofherandCBI'saffirmationsinthelightofglaringgapsintheTalwars'story.

July9,2008

Rajkumar,thedomestichelpoftheDurranis,issubjectedbyCBItoasecondnarco-analysistestatFSL[disambiguationneeded]Bangalore.

July10,2008

NewsreportsonsomeTVchannelssuggestthattheCBIhashadabreakthroughonRajkumarastheculpritandhasconfessedduringthenarco-analysistest.HeislearnedtohavecommittedthemurderalongwithKrishna,SambhuandHemraj.Thereasonforthefirstmurder,astoldbyRajkumar,waslustandHemrajwaskilledforfearthathemighthavedisclosedinformation.

July11,2008

VijayMandal(aliasSambhu)theservantoneoftheneighborsoftheTalwarsisarrestedbytheCBI.Inapressconference,ArunKumar,JointDirectorCBI,statesthattheCBIisawaitingDNAmatchingofwashedbloodstainsonRajkumar'sT-shirts.Heconfir

msthattheCBIstillconsideredthisablindcaseandexpressesthehopethatthecasewillbesolvedsoon.Dr.RajeshTalwarandKrishnaappearbeforeaspecialCBIcourt,Ghaziabadtoseekbail.TheirpetitionsareheardandDr.RajeshTalwarisreleasedonbail,forlackofevidence.EminentcriminallawyerR.K.AnandundertakesthedefenceofKrishna.CBIbelievestwoorthreedomestichelpsandKrishnatobetheprimesuspects.However,theforensicevidenceisnotadmissibleasevidenceinthecourt.ThemurderweaponandthetwocellphonesrespectivelyofAarushiandHemrajarestillmissing.

July12,2008

Dr.RajeshTalwarisfreedonbailfromtheDasnaJailinGhaziabad.Thenewsofhisreleasebringsbackwidespreadmediaattentiontothecase.VijayMandalissentto3-days'CBIcustodybythecourtofadditionalchiefjudicialmagistrateDineshKumarinGhaziabad.[10]VijayMandalhasbeenaccusedunder302,201,120(B)oftheIndianPenalCode(IPC).

July15,2008

VijayMandal'spolicecustodyextendedforfourmoredays.[11]TheCBIexpectedtofindthemurderweaponandthecellphonesofAarushiandHemrajwithMandal'shelp.

July16,2008

AnassociationofNepalesecitizensallegesthatKrishnaandRajkumararebeingpressurizedtomakeconfessionalstatements.[12]

July18,2008

CBIhasnotseizedanyevidenceandisyettoreceiveacrucialforensicreportonaccusedRajkumar,accordingtomediareports.IthasweakenedthecaseagainstthethreeprimesuspectsKrishna,RajkumarandVijayMandal.TheCBIclaimsnearclosingofthecasewhenpreliminaryreportsfromHyderabad'sCentrefor


7/22

DNAFingerprintingandDiagnostics,suggeststhatidentifyingthebloodontheT-shirt"mayormaynotbepossible",accordingtomediareports.[13]SeparatingDNAfromgarmentsafteralapseoftwomonthsisnotalwayspossible,becauseofthedisintegrationoftheredbloodcellsonthecloth.

July19,2008

VijayMandalsentintopolicecustodyforfourmoredays.

July21

RastriyaJanaMorcha(RJM)chairmanChitraBahadurK.C.allegesthatthetwoNepalesenationalsKrishnaThapaandRajkumarwerefalselyaccusedbytheCBIinthecase,[14]inordertosaveDr.RajeshTalwar.ThepartyhasdecidedtoraisetheissueintheNepaleseparliament.ThepartywillalsoapproachtheNepalesegovernmentandthenationalhumanrightscommissiontosavethetwo.

July22,2008

AbenchcomprisingJusticeAltmasKabirandJusticeMarkandeyKatjuofthesupremecourtofIndiainstructsthemediatobecareful[15]inthecontextofthehearingofapublicinterestlawsuitthathasraisedquestionsonthemediacoverageofthehigh-profilemurdercase.Intheprobe,thecharacterofthevictim'sparentswashotlydebated,especiallythatofAarushi'sfatherRajeshTalwar

whowasarrestedinitiallyasthemainaccused.However,noadverseobservationsweremadeaboutthecompounderKrishnaandtheothertwodomestichelpsRajkumarandVijayMandal.Adistinctionseemstohavebeenmadeaccordingtotheaccusedpersons'classandnationalidentities.

July25,2008

ThePolicecustodyoftheaccusedKrishna,RajkumarandVijayMandalisextendedtillAugust8.ThethreeaccusedarebroughttotheGhaziabadcourthandcuffedandlinkedbyarope.Thejudgeobjectstotheinhumantreatmentoftheaccusedandthepoliceofficertendershisapologies.[16]

July31,2008

AHindichannelAajTakairsanewsreportallegingthatVijayMandalwasdrilledwithleadinginformation,priortothenarco-analysistests.Further,thereareallegationsthatMandal'sconfessionsduringthenarco-analysistestshavemanygaps.

August8,2008

ThePolicecustodyoftheaccusedKrishna,RajkumarandVijayMandalisextendedfor14moredays,astheyarenowconsideredtheprimeaccused.

August9,2008

CBIdirectorAshwaniKumarsays[17]thecaseisstillunsolved,asmanyimportantcorroborativepiecesofevidenceareyettobefound.However,hefullyacceptsthatitisimportantthatDr.RajeshTalwarbeexoneratedorthesanctityofourfamilystructurewillbebeenchallenged.

September4,2009

TheCentralForensicLaboratoryinHyderabadreleasesareportthatAarushi'svaginalsamplesweresubstitutedwiththoseofanunknownwoman.Thecorrectsamplescouldhavehelpedtoestablishwhokilledtheteenager,andwhethershewass


8/22

exuallyassaultedbeforebeingstabbed.TheclothesthatAarushiwasfoundinweresoakedinblood.Buttheforensiclabreceivedcleanclothes.

September14,2009

DelhipolicerecoversAarushi'smobilephoneinBulandshahr.(ref)IndiaTVnews16/7/09[18]

Jan5,2010.

CBIMovesCourttoconductNarcotestonTalwarCouple.

May16,2010.

AprayermeetisconductedbytheTalwarsinremembranceoftheirdeaddaughterAarushiwhowaskilledonMay16,2008.

July21,2010.

Dr.RajeshTalwarmovesthecourttohavearestraintorderpassedagainsttheunethicalandmisleadinginformationbeingpublishedbysomeprintmediaoutlets.CBIreportedlyseekinghelpofforeignforensiclabstocrackthetwoyearoldcase.

December29,2010

CBIfilesclosurereportinAarushimurdercase.TheclosurereportfiledinGhaziabadcourtsaysRajeshTalwaristhesolesuspect,andthatKrishna,RajKumarandMandalarecompletelycleared.

January3,2011

GhaziabadcourtexaminesthevalidityoftheclosurereportbyCBIcitinginadequateevidenceagainstthesuspectsinthedoublemurdercase.[19]AsperCBI,theprimesuspectisstillRajeshTalwarhoweverthemotiveofthiskillingisstillunknown.

January25,2011

Arushi'sfather,Dr.RajeshTalwar,isattackedoutsidecourtwithacleaverbyayouthcalledUtsavSharmainprotestagainstCBI'sdecisiontorecallthecaseandthatUtsavwasupsetthatTalwarwasnotconvicted.UtsavhadalsoinprotestattackedformerpolicechiefS.P.S.RathoreoftheRuchikaGirhotracaseinFebruary2010.[20]

January30,2011

PeoplefromallwalksoflifegettogethertoprotestatJantarMantar,DelhitopressforJusticeinthecase.

February9,2011

ThespecialCBIcourtonWednesdaymadeRajeshTalwarandNupurTalwaraccusedintheAarushimurdercase.TheCourthasalsoissuedsummonsagainstAarushi'sparents,accusingthemofmurderandcriminalconspiracyunderIPC302and34.ThenextdateforhearinghasbeenfixedasFebruary28.

March8,2011


9/22

ThemotherofDr.Talwar'sattorneyisfoundmurderedinherhome.

March18,2011

SupremeCourtstaysHighCourtorderagainsttheTalwars.

March21,2011

TheTalwarssurrenderpassportstotheGhaziabadDistrictCourt.

March25,2011

Hemraj'swidowfilesapplicationinGhaziabadCourtclaimingTalwarskilledhimandAarushi.

April8,2011

SCpullsupTalwarsfornotsubmittingtheiroriginalplea.

April11,2011

TalwarsdueincourtApril15,2011.

April15,2011

SupremeCourtseeksCBI'sresponseinAarushiTalwarcase.

April22,2011

CBIchargesRajeshTalwarwithforgeryandconcealingfacts.

April23,2011

CBIsays"OnlyparentscouldhavekilledAarushi".

April27,2011

Aarushi'shearinginCBIcourtonJuly20.

June15,2011

Mayawatisuspendspoliceofficercitingtheunsolvedthree-year-oldAarushiTalwarmurdercase.

Jan6,2012

SCdismissesTalwars'plea,saystrialwillresume

Jan9,2012

RajeshTalwartoremainonbail,askedtoappearbeforetrialcourtonFeb4

March2,2012

SupremeCourtrefusestoshiftAarushimurdertrialtoDelhifromaGhaziabadcourt[21].----------Arushimurdercase:TheuntoldstoryByMihirSrivastava|IndiaTodayMon24Jan,2011


10/22

25EmailPrint

LatestSlideshows

Picturesoftheweek12th-18thMarch14photos-Thu15Mar,2012JensonButtontastesvictoryattheAustralianF119photos-7hoursagoAnarmlessphotographeratwork15photos-7hoursago

AdisturbingsexualanglehasemergedinthemurderofAarushiTalwar,14.Crucialfactsleftoutfromherpost-mortemreportsuggestthatherprivatepartswere"extraordinarilydilated".Buttherewerenosignsofrape.Thesefacts,establishedbytheCBIaftertheyquestionedthedoctorwhoperformedthepost-mortem,giveanewtwisttothecase."Thevaginalorificeofthedeceasedwasundulylargeandmouthofcervixwasvisible,"saystheCBI'sclosurereport.

Herprivatepartswerecleaned.Thiscausedwaterstainsonthebedsheet.Therewasnosemenonthebedsheet.ButthepyjamasAarushiworedidnothavewaterstainsonit.Thisshowsthatthecrimescenewasdressedup.TheCBIbelievesAarushimayhavebeenkilledelsewhereandthebodyplacedonherbed.

parallelinvestigationbyHeadlinesTodayrevealsthatthechairpersonoftheNationalCommissiononWomen(NCW)GirijaVyasallegedlyscuttledaprobeintotheAarushi'smurderbyatwo-memberNCWcommittee.Soonafterthekilling,thiscommitteevisitedtheTalwarhouseinJalvayuVihar,Noida,toinvestigate.FormerNCWmemberNirmalaVenkateshallegesthatassoonastheysteppedintoHemraj'sroom,shegotfivecallsfromVyas,askinghertostoptheprobe.Vyasinitiallydeniedtherewasaninquiryandthatacommitteewasformed.Shelateradmittedthattherewas,butsaidthereportwasnotmadepublicbecausetheCBIwasabouttoinvestigate.

ThesesensationalrevelationsflyinthefaceoftheCBI'sclosurereport.Lastmonth,theCBIsoughtthespecialcourt'spermissiontoclosethedoublemurdercasebecauseitcouldnotsolveit.

ThoughtheCBIhasbeenunabletonailtheaccused,itsinvestigationshavecompletelyruledoutthepossibilityofoutsidershavingkilledAarushianddomestichelpHemrajBanjade.Circumstantialevidencepointstothecomplicityofthoseinside.Thecrimescenewasmethodically"dressedup"orcleansedofallevidencewhichcouldimplicatetheTalwars.Anexpertfromtheforensicsciencelaboratory,Gandhinagar,whoinspectedthecrimescene,saysthatthecrimehadbeencommittedbysomeone"veryclosetoAarushi".

Nobodyexceptthekillerorkillers,ofcourse,knowswhatexactlyhappenedintheTalwarresidenceduringthesixcrucialhoursbetween12midnightand6a.m.onMay16,2008,whenbothHemrajandAarushiwerebrutallymurderedwithinanhour.Aarushiwasbludgeonedonherforeheadandherthroatslitwithasmall,sh

arpobject.SowasHemraj.

Areconstructionofthecrime,however,increasinglypointstoaninsidehand.Theassailantshadgainedeasyaccesstotheflatbecausetherewerenosignsofforcedentry.TheykilledAarushiandHemraj,movedtheirbodiesaroundtheflatandevenstayedbehindfordrinks.TheparentsofAarushi,NupurandRajeshTalwar,seemtohavesleptthroughanincredibleamountofactivityintheirsmallflat.Theyclaimedtheirbedroomdoorwasshutandtheair-conditionerturnedon.


11/22

ThemurdererdraggedHemraj'sbodytotheterraceusingasheet.Thebodywascursorilycoveredwithacoolerlidandabedsheetonaclothesline.Themurderersthenlockedtheterracedoorandre-enteredthehouse.TheyevenseemedtoknowwheretheTalwars'mini-barwas-behindawoodenpanelnearthediningtable.Theydrankfromabottleofwhiskeyandleftitonthediningtable.Thebottlehadbloodstainsofbothvictims.

Ataround3.43a.m.,theInternetrouterinAarushi'sroomwasswitchedoff.Thatmeansthatsomebodyenteredherroomnearlythreehoursafterhermurder.Whoeveritwas,failedtoraisethealarmorevenspotherbody.

At6.01a.m.,housemaidBhartiarrived.Sherangthedoorbellfourtimes.Normally,Hemraj,thedomestichelp,wouldopenthedoor,butthistimeNupuropenedit.Rajeshwasalsoawake.Thiswasunusualbecausethecouplewerelaterisers.Theirongrilldoorattheentrancewaslockedfromoutside,soNupurthrewthekeysfromthebalconytoBharti.Threeminuteslater,whenBhartientered,shefoundthecouplesobbing."DekhoHemrajnekyakardiya(lookwhatHemrajhasdone)".Aarushiwasfoundonthebedinapoolofblood.Bhartirushedouttoinformtheneighbours.Hemraj'sroomhadanindependententryandopenedintotheflatfrominside.

Anotherstrangeincidenthappenedaroundthistime.NupurcalledHemraj'scellphonefromherlandlineat6.01a.m.Thecallwasimmediatelydisconnected.Thismeansthedeadservant'sphonewasattendedbysomeonenearthecrimescene.Inex

plicably,bothHemraj'sandAarushi'scellphonesdisappeared.Hemraj'sphonewasneverfoundbutAarushi'sNokiaN72wasfoundonadirttrackbyahousemaidnearNoida'sSadarpurareaafortnightlater.Itsmemorywaswipedclean.Thecellphonewasacrucialpieceofevidence.

Aarushiwouldusuallybeupchattingwithherfriendsuntilwellpastmidnight.OnthenightofMay15,hercellphonewasinactiveafter9.10p.m.Ataroundmidnight,herfriendAnmolcalledontheTalwarlandlinebecausehecouldnotgetthroughhercellphone.Therewasnoresponse.AnmolthensentanSMStohercellphoneataround12.30.ThisSMSwasnotreceivedbyAarushi'sphone.

WhatweretheTalwarsdoingbeforethemurders?AccordingtotheCBIclosurereport,afterreachinghomeat9.30p.m.,theydinedwithAarushi,thentookafew

picturesonanewdigitalcameratheyboughtforAarushiasabirthdaygiftandretiredbyaround11p.m.Aroundthistime,NupurcametoAarushi'sroomtoswitchontheInternetrouter.Aarushiwasreadingabook.

TheparentscontrolledaccesstoAarushi'sroombylockingit;thekeystoherroomwouldusuallyliebyNupur'sbedside.NupurtoldthepolicethatshewasnotsurewhethershelockedAarushi'sdoorthelasttimeshewenttoherroom.RajeshreceivedacallfromtheUSonhislandlineatthistime.Thisindicatedthathisringerwasnotsilent.HesurfedtheInternet,sentsomeemails,surveyedstockmarketsitesandsomedentistrysites.Hesenthislastemailat11.57p.m.beforepresumablygoingtosleep.

Thefollowingmorning,thebunchofkeystotheflatandterracewerefoundont

hebedinHemraj'sroombyNupur.Aarushi'sbedroomkeyswerefoundinthelivingroom.Itwastheonlysetofhousekeys,soitisstillnotclearhowtheTalwarswerelockedfromtheoutside.Thepolicearrivedanhourlater,at7.15a.m.Theyweremetbyacrowdinside.Therewere15peopleinthelivingroomandfive-sixpeopleintheTalwars'bedroom.OnlyAarushi'sroomwasempty.Thecrimescenewascompletelytrampledupon.

The"HemrajkilledAarushi"theorywasgospelforafullday.RajeshrepeatedlytoldthepoliceofficerstopursueHemrajandnottowastetimeinhisflat.Hedissuadedthemfromopeningthelockedterracedoorandevenofferedthepolicem


12/22

enRs25,000torushtoHemraj'svillageinNepal.

TheCBIandpolicementiontheysawtheconcertedeffortsbytheTalwarstoputtheblameonHemrajasadiversionarytactic.Meanwhile,doctorsvisitingtheTalwarssawbloodstainsonthehandleofthelockedterracedoor.Theyalsosawwipedbloodyfootmarksandbloodstainsontheupperstaircase.Rajeshwasaskedforthekeysbuthewentinsidehisresidenceafterseeingtheblood-staineddoorhandle.Thepolicefailedtoopenthedoorforafullday.Aarushi'sbodywastakenforapost-morteminNoidaatabout9a.m.andherlastritesperformedlateintheevening.TheTalwars'domesticstaffshowedunduehasteinthoroughlycleaningupfloorsandwallsofAarushi'sroomwithsoapandwater.Aarushi'sblood-stainedmattresswasdumpedontheterracebelongingtoneighbourPuneetTandon.

Meanwhile,whenthepost-mortemreportwasbeingwrittenbetween3p.m.and6p.m.onMay16,atelephonicloopwascreatedbetweenRajesh'selderbrotherDineshTalwar,familyfriendDrSushilChaudhury,K.K.Gautam,aretireddeputysuperintendentofpolice,andanunidentifiednumber.DineshwouldcallChaudhurywhowouldcallGautam.Thelatterwoulddialanunidentifiednumber.Thissequencewasthenreversed.Thisloopwascreatedsixtimesthatevening.TheCBIclaimsthatitwasdonetodeletereferencesto"rape"inAarushi'spost-mortemreport.

Some28fingerprintsampleswereliftedfromthesceneofcrimeandhandedovertotheCBIonMay20.Thiswas10daysbeforethecasewasformallyhandedover

totheCBI.Mostofthefingerprints,especiallythoseonthewhiskeybottle,weresmudged.

Between9a.m.and10a.m.onMay17,thisloopwasrepeatedtwice.Soonafterthesecallsweremade,GautamarrivedattheTalwarhouseandaskedfortheterracedoortobeopenedafterexaminingthesiteofcrime.Beforecallingthelocalpolicetoopenthedoor,hecalledatopUttarPradeshpoliceofficerandthenhisjournalistfriendssothatthedoorisopenedinmediaglare.Gautamtoldthemthattherewaslikelytobeaninterestingdiscovery.WhenthelocalpolicearrivedattheTalwarresidence,themediawasalreadythere.Thekeystotheterracewerestillmissing,sothelockwasbrokentoentertheterrace.Hemraj'sbodywasdiscovered.However,vitalcluesweremissing-theblood-soakedclothesoftheperpetrators,theclothusedtocleanthefloorand

thesheetonwhichHemraj'sbodywasdragged.

WasthereadefiniteploytohideHemraj'sbody?Andwhyleaveitontheterrace?CBIsleuthsbelievethebodywashiddenontheroofbythemurdererfordisposallater.Butthemediaglaremadeitvirtuallyimpossibletospiritawaythebody,hencetheychangedtheplan.ItmayproveasdifficultfortheCBItowalkawayfromoneofIndia'smostsensationalwhodunits.

-------PostedbyadvocatemmmohanJanuary10,2012Aarushimurdercase=ThepowersofMagistratetotakecognizanceeventhereportofinvestigatingofficerfoundnooffenceasperhisopinion=Thepositionis,therefore,nowwellsettledthatuponreceiptofapolicereportunderSection173(

2)aMagistrateisentitledtotakecognizanceofanoffenceunderSection190(1)(b)oftheCodeevenifthepolicereportistotheeffectthatnocaseismadeoutagainst--------ReliefforTalwars,RajeshsbailextendedtoApril11

NupurTalwarskipshearing,directedtoappearwithin30days;herbailpleatobedisposedofexpeditiously


13/22

ArpitParasharGhaziabad

AfilephotoofRajeshandNupurTalwaratthespecialCBIcourtinGhaziabadALSOREADCourttellsCBItochargeTalwarsinAarushi-Hemrajdoublemurdercase

Perfectmurder?Oraperfectlybotchedprobe?

THEHOUSEWEblewdown

ThespecialCentralBureauofInvestigation(CBI)courtinGhaziabadonWednesday14MarchextendedthebailofRajeshTalwarinconnectionwiththeAarushiTalwar-Hemrajdoublemurdercase.ThecourtalsoorderedhiswifeNupurTalwartoappearbeforeitwithin30days.RajeshTalwarattendedthehearingaccompaniedbyhisbrotherDineshbutNupurwasnotpresentduringthehearing.

TheCBIstronglyopposedthepleabythecoupleforananticipatorybailinthecaseandsaidthattherewerehiddenmotivesbehindtheplea,andthatitmighthavebeenfiledsinceSection438oftheCriminalProcedureCode(CrPC),thatdealswithproceduresrelatedtoanticipatorybail,isnotapplicableinUttarPradesh(UP).TheCBIcounselalsosaidthatsincethebailgrantedtothecouplebytheSupremeCourt(SC)wasconditional,RajeshTalwarshouldfacearrestandthenapplyforfreshbailinthecourt;theagencyaskedforjudicialcustodyofNupu

rTalwar.However,theSpecialJudicialMagistratePreetiSinghwasnotconvincedandextendedthebailgrantedtoRajeshbytheSCtill11AprilandalsodirectedNupurTalwartoappearbeforeitwithin30days.Thenexthearinginthematterwillbeheldon11April.

NupurTalwarhadonTuesdayapproachedtheAllahabadHighCourtthroughhercounselVPSrivastavapleadingthatherbailbeheardsimultaneouslywhensheappearsbeforethetrialcourt.However,JusticeBKNarayana,whoheardthecase,saidthatthattheonlyreliefthatcanbegrantedatthisstagewouldbetoaskthelowercourttohearthebailpleaexpeditiouslyandhadissuedthesamedirectionstotheGhaziabadcourt.Theapplicationhadbeenfiledundersection482oftheCrPC,whichgivesexclusivepowerstotheHCtomakedecisionsonmattersofjustice.NupurandRajesharebothaccusedmurder(underIPCsection302),crim

inalconspiracy(IPC120B)anddestructionofevidence(IPCsection201).

ThecouplehadlastmonthapproachedtheSCdemandingthatthecourtproceedingsbeshiftedtoDelhicitingsecurityrisksinGhaziabad.RajeshTalwarhadbeenattackedoutsidetheGhaziabadcourton25January,2011.ThecounselforTalwarshadalsosaidintheSCthatthetrialcourtjudgehadbeenhearingthematterinapre-determinedmanner.Buton2March,aBenchledbyJusticeBSChauhandismissedthepetitionsfiledbytheTalwarsandsaidthatTalwarsconductshowedimpertinencemagnifiedmanifoldfortheruleoflaw.

However,despiteexpressingsecurityconcernsintheSC,theTalwarshadnotapproachedtheGhaziabadpoliceforsecuritysincetheattackonRajeshlastyear.Aftertheattack,thetrialcourtjudgehadissuedordersunderSection327oft

heCrPCandallowedonlylitigantsandadvocatesrelatedtothecaseinsidethecourtroom.However,aspertheSCorderdirectingtheUPadministrationtoprovideadequatesecuritytotheTalwars,GhaziabadpolicedeployedaunitoftheProvincialArmedConstabulary(PAC)outsidethecourt,saidcitypolicechiefRaghubirLal.Themediawasnotallowedintothecourtroomandnearly35policeofficers,allarmed,weredeployedoutside.

TheCBIcourthadsummonedthedentistcoupleasaccusedinthecaseaftertheprobeagencyfileditsclosurereportanddirectedtheCBItofileacaseagainstthemformurder,criminalconspiracyanddestructionofevidencesincetherewa


14/22

ssufficientevidenceinitsclosurereport.

ThecouplehadmovedtheHCandlatertheSCtogetthetrialcourtordersquashed,buthadnotgotanyrelief.TheSCBenchofJusticesAKGangulyandJSKheharhad,on6January,ruledthatthedentistcouplewouldfacetrialforthemurdersandsaidthattherewasnothingwrongintheGhaziabadtrialcourtJudgesordertakingcognisanceandputtingthecoupleontrialashehadpassedtheorderafterapplyinghismind.

Aarushi(14),theonlydaughteroftheTalwars,wasfounddeadwithherthroatslitatthefamilysL-32JalvayuViharresidenceinNoidaonthemorningof16May,2008,andthebodyofHemraj,theirdomestichelp,wasfoundontheterracethenextday.-------HCordersearlydisposalofDrNupur'sbailpleaAllahabad|Tuesday,Mar132012ISTAllahabadHighCourttodaydirectedaCBIcourttodisposethebailpleaofDrNupurTalwar,anaccusedintheAarushimurdercase,attheearliest.AdivisionbenchcomprisingJusticeVKNarayanhaspassedthisorder,whilehearingthepetitionofDrTalwarfiledundersection482oftheIPC.DrNupurTalwar,themotherofAarushi,isfacingacaseagainstherundersection302and301oftheIPCinspecialCBIcourt.HerhusbndRajeshTalwarisalsoco-accusedintothekillingoftheirdaughter.OnMay17,2008,Aarushi'sbodywasrecoveredfromherhouse.Fewdayslater,theirdomestichelpHemrajwasalsofoundmurderedatthe

terrace.TheCBIcourthadinaclosurereportonDecember21,2010suspectedtheinvolvementofthegirl'sparentsintothekilling.UNIXC-JASSBVC1919NNNN-------HeadMaster,LawrenceSchoolLovedaleVs.JayanthiRaghu&Anr.

INTHESUPREMECOURTOFINDIACIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTIONDalveerBhandariandDipakMisra,JJ.March16,2012CIVILAPPEALNo.2012(ArisingoutofSLP(c)No.21400of2008)HeadNote:-

RulesofLawrenceSchool,Lovedale(Nilgiris)-Rule4.9-RegardbeinghadtothetenoroftheRules,thewordsifconfirmed,readinpropercontext,conferastatusontheappointeewhichconsequentlyentitleshimtocontinueontheposttilltheageof55years,unlessheisotherwiseremovedfromserviceaspertheRules.

JUDGMENTDipakMisra,JLeavegranted.2.QuestioningthelegalacceptabilityoftheJudgmentandOrderdated26.03.2008passedbytheHighCourtofJudicatureatMadrasinW.A.No.4157of2004wherebythefindingrecordedbythelearnedSingleJudgeinW.P.No.15963of1997totheeffectthattheorderofterminationinrespectofthefirstrespondent,a

teacher,beingstigmaticinnatureandhavingbeenpassedwithoutanenquirywarrantedquashmentwasdislodgedbytheDivisionBenchonthefoundationthattheorderofterminationdidnotcastanystigma,butconcurredwiththeultimateconclusiononthebasethatshewasaconfirmedemployeeandhence,holdingofdisciplinaryenquirybeforepassinganorderofterminationwasimperative,thepresentappealbyspecialleavehasbeenpreferredunderArticle136oftheConstitutionofIndia.3.Thefactualmatrixliesinanarrowcompass.ThefirstrespondenthereinwasappointedonthepostofaMistresswitheffectfrom01.09.1993.Itwasstipulatedintheletterofappointmentthatshewouldbeonprobationforaperiodoft


15/22

woyearswhichmaybeextendedforanotheroneyear,ifnecessary.InNovember1995,whileshewasworkingasaMistressintheappellantsschool,asalleged,shehadreceivedsomeamountfromoneNathan.Ameetingwasconvenedon09.09.1997andintheproceeding,certainfactswererecordedwhichneednotbeadvertedtoinasmuchasthesaidallegationsthoughtreatedstigmaticbythelearnedSingleJudge,yettheDivisionBench,onastudiedscrutinyofthefactualscenario,hasopinedincategoricaltermsthatthesamedonotcastanystigma.Thesaid-conclusionhasgoneunassailedasnoappealhasbeenpreferredbythefirstrespondent.4.Toproceedwiththenarration,aftertheproceedingwasrecordedon18.06.1997,anorderofterminationwaspassedagainstthefirstrespondent.Ashasbeenstatedearlier,theorderofterminationwasassailedbeforetheWritCourtandthelearnedSingleJudgeaxedtheorderonthegroundthatthesamewasstigmaticinnature.TheorderpassedbythelearnedSingleJudgewaschallengedinWritAppealunderClause15oftheLettersPatentbythepresentappellantandatthatjuncture,acontentionwascanvassedbythefirstrespondentthatbyvirtueofthelanguageemployedinRule4.9oftheRulesofLawrenceSchool,Lovedale(Nilgiris)(forshort,theRules),shehadearnedthestatusofaconfirmedemployeehavingsatisfactorilycompletedtheperiodofprobationand,therefore,herservicescouldnothavebeendispensedwithwithoutholdinganenquiry.Inessence,theproponementwasthatshewasdeemedtohavebeenaconfirmedemployeeoftheschoolandhence,itwasobligatoryonthepartoftheemployertoholdanenquirybeforeputtinganendtoherservices.5.TheDivisionBenchinterpretedtheRuleandplacedrelianceonathree-Judge

BenchDecisionofthisCourtinTheHighCourtofMadhyaPradeshthroughRegistrarandOthersv.SatyaNarayanJhaver,(2001)7SCC161:AIR2001SC3234andcametoholdasfollows:-

IntermsofRule4.9oftheRules,themaximumperiodofprobationwouldbeonlythreeyearsandtheruledoesnotprovideanyfurtherextensionofprobation.Ifthatbeso,theHeadmasteroftheschoolwouldbeentitledtopassordersastotheconfirmationbeforetheexpiryofthemaximumperiodofthreeyearsi.e.,1.9.1996.Factuallynosuchorderwaspassedinthiscaseandtheteacherwasallowedtoservebeyondtheperiodof1.9.1996tilltheorderofterminationdated18.6.1997waspassed.Intheabsenceofanyprovisionforextensionbeyondaperiodofthreeyears,inlaw,asstatedbytheSupremeCourt,theservicesoftheteacherwouldbetreatedasconfirmedafter1.9.1996.Mr.K.R.Vijayakumar,

learnedcounselfortheschoolhassubmittedthatthesaidrule4.9contemplatesthatonlyifconfirmedtheprobationwouldcometoanend.Thesaidsubmissionisbasedontherulethattheappointee,ifconfirmed,shallcontinuetoholdofficetilltheageof55years.Inouropinion,thesaidrulerelatestotheupperagelimitfortheentireservice,i.e.,intheeventofaprobationerisconfirmed,hewouldbeentitledtocontinuetilltheageof55years.ThesaidruledoesnotinanywayempowerstheHeadmasterortheChairman,asthecasemaybe,toextendtheperiodofprobationbeyondthemaximumperiodofthreeyears.

6.Assailingthelegalsubstantialityoftheorder,Mr.K.V.Viswanathan,learnedseniorcounsel,hassubmittedthattheDivisionBenchhasgrosslyerredbycomingtotheconclusionthataftertheexpiryoftheprobationperiod,thefirstrespondentbecameaconfirmedemployee.Itishisfurthersubmissionthatifthe

languageemployedinRule4.9oftheRules,especiallythewordsifconfirmed,areappreciatedinproperperspective,therecanbenotraceofdoubtthatanaffirmativeactwasrequiredtobedonebytheemployerwithoutwhichtheemployeecouldnotbetreatedtobeaconfirmedone.ThelearnedseniorcounselwouldfurthercontendthattheHighCourthasclearlyflawedinitsinterpretationoftheRulebyconnectingthefactumofconfirmationwiththefixationofupperagelimitforsuperannuation.ItisalsourgedbyhimthattheDivisionBenchhasclearlyfaultedinitsappreciationofthelawlaiddowninSatyaNarayanJhaver(supra)inasmuchasthecaseofthefirstrespondentsquarelyfallsinthecategorywhereaspecificactonthepartoftheemployerisanimperativerequisite.


16/22

7.Combatingtheaforesaidsubmissions,Ms.ShwetaBasti,learnedcounselappearingforthefirstrespondent,submittedthattheorderpassedbytheHighCourtisabsolutelyimpeccablesinceonacarefulscanningoftheRule,itisdiscerniblethatitdoesnotconferanypowerontheemployertoextendtheperiodofprobationbeyondthemaximumperiodasstipulatedintheRuleand,therefore,theprincipleofdeemedconfirmationgetsattracted.ItisproponedbyherthattheemphasisplacedonthetermifconfirmedbytheappellantistotallymisconcievedandunwarrantedbecauseitsplacementintheRuleluminouslyprojectsthatithasaninsegregablenexuswiththeageofretirementandithasnopostulatewhichwoulddestroytheconceptofdeemedconfirmation.IthasbeenfurtherputforththattheRuleneitherlaysdownanypostulatethattheemployeeshallpassanytestnordoesitstipulateanyconditionprecedentforthepurposeofconfirmation.Lastly,itiscontendedthataliberalinterpretationisnecessaryregardbeinghadtotheuncertaintiesthatismetwithbyaprobationeraftertheexpiryoftheprobationperiodandunlessthebeneficentfacetistakennoteof,thecapriceoftheemployerwouldprevailandtheservicecareerofanemployeewouldbefossilized.8.ToappreciatetherivalisedsubmissionsraisedattheBar,wehavecarefullyperusedtheletterofappointmentandonaplainreadingofthesame,itisapparentthatthefirstrespondentwasappointedasaMistressintheSchoolonprobationforaperiodoftwoyearswithastipulationthatitmaybeextendedbyanotheryear.Thereisnothinginthetermsoftheletterofappointmentfromwhichitcanbeconstruedthataftertheexpiryoftheperiodofprobation,shewouldbetreatedasadeemedconfirmedemployee.Inthisfactualbackdrop,theinter

pretationtobeplacedonRule4.9oftheRulesassumesimmensesignification.ThesaidRulereadsasfollows:-

4.9AllappointmentstothestaffshallordinarilybemadeonprobationforaperiodofoneyearwhichmayatthediscretionoftheHeadmasterortheChairmaninthecaseofmembersofthestaffappointedbytheBoardbeextendeduptotwoyears.Theappointee,ifconfirmed,shallcontinuetoholdofficetilltheageof55years,exceptasotherwiseprovidedintheseRules.EveryappointmentshallbesubjecttotheconditionsthattheappointeeiscertifiedasmedicallyfitforservicebyaMedicalOfficernominatedbytheBoardorbytheResidentMedicalOfficeroftheSchool.

9.KeepinginabeyancetheinterpretationtobeplacedontheRuleforawhile,

itisobligatorytostatethatthereisnodisputeattheBarthatthefirstrespondenthadcompletedtheperiodofprobationofthreeyears.Thus,thefulcrumofthecontroversyiswhethertheappellant-schoolwasjustifiedundertheRulestreatingtherespondent-teacherasaprobationerandnottreatingherasadeemedconfirmedemployee.WehavereproducedthenecessaryparagraphfromthedecisionoftheHighCourtandhighlightedhowtheDivisionBenchhasanalysedandinterpretedtheRuleinquestion.Thebedrockoftheanalysis,asisperceivable,isthesentenceinRule4.9theappointee,ifconfirmed,shallcontinuetoholdofficetilltheageof55yearsfundamentallyrelatestothefixationoftheupperagelimitfortheentireservice.Ithasbeenheldthatitdealswiththeentitlementofanemployeetocontinuetilltheageof55years.10.BeforeweproceedtoappreciatewhethertheinterpretationplacedontheRuleiscorrectornot,itisappositetorefertocertainauthoritiesinthefield

.InSukhbansSinghv.StateofPunjab,AIR1962SC1711theConstitutionBenchhasopinedthataprobationercannot,aftertheexpiryoftheprobationaryperiod,automaticallyacquirethestatusofapermanentmemberoftheservice,unlessofcourse,therulesunderwhichheisappointedexpresslyprovideforsucharesult.11.InG.S.RamaswamyandOrs.v.Inspector-GeneralofPolice,Mysore,AIR1966SC175anotherConstitutionBench,whiledealingwiththelanguageemployedunderRule486oftheHyderabadDistrictPoliceManual,referredtothedecisioninSukhbansSingh(supra)andopinedasfollows:


17/22

Ithasbeenheldinthatcasethataprobationercannotaftertheexpiryoftheprobationaryperiodautomaticallyacquirethestatusofapermanentmemberofaservice,unlessofcoursetherulesunderwhichheisappointedexpresslyprovideforsucharesult.Thereforeeventhoughaprobationermayhavecontinuedtoactintheposttowhichheisonprobationformorethantheinitialperiodofprobation,hecannotbecomeapermanentservantmerelybecauseofeffluxoftime,unlesstheRulesofservicewhichgovernhimspecificallylaydownthattheprobationerwill;beautomaticallyconfirmedaftertheinitialperiodofprobationisover.Itiscontendedonbehalfofthepetitionersbeforeusthatthepartofr.486(whichwehavesetoutabove)expresslyprovidesforautomaticconfirmationaftertheperiodofprobationisover.Weareofopinionthatthereisnoforceinthiscontention.Itistruethatthewordsusedinthesentencesetoutabovearenotthatpromotedofficerswillbeenableorqualifiedforpromotionattheendoftheirprobationaryperiodwhicharethewordstobeoftenfoundintherulesinsucheases;evenso,thoughthispartofr.486saysthat"promotedofficerswillbeconfirmedattheendoftheirprobationaryperiod",itisqualifiedbythewords"iftheyhavegivensatisfaction".Clearlythereforetheruledoesnotcontemplateautomaticconfirmationaftertheprobationaryperiodoftwoyears,forapromotedofficercanonlybeconfirmedunderthisruleifhehasgivensatisfaction.

12.InStateofUttarPradeshv.AkbarAliKhan,AIR1966SC1842anotherConstitutionBenchruledthatiftheorderofappointmentitselfstatesthatattheendoftheperiodofprobation,intheabsenceofanyordertothecontrary,thea

ppointeewillacquireasubstantiverighttothepostevenwithoutanorderofconfirmation.Inallothercases,intheabsenceofsuchanorderorintheabsenceofsuchaservicerule,anexpressorderofconfirmationisnecessarytogivehimsucharight.Whereaftertheperiodofprobation,anappointeeisallowedtocontinueinthepostwithoutanorderofconfirmation,theonlypossibleviewtotakeisthatbyimplication,theperiodofprobationhasbeenextended,anditisnotacorrectpropositiontostatethatanappointeeshouldbedeemedtobeconfirmedfromthemerefactthatheisallowedtocontinueaftertheendoftheperiodofprobation.13.InStateofPunjabv.DharamSingh,AIR1968SC1210theConstitutionBench,afterscanningtheanatomyoftheRulesinquestion,addresseditselftothepreciseeffectofRule6ofthePunjabEducationalService(ProvincialisedCadre)ClassIIIRules,1961.ThesaidRulestipulatedthatthetotalperiodofprobati

on-includingextensions,ifany,shallnotexceedthreeyears.ThisCourtreferredtotheearlierviewwhichhadconsistentlystatedthatwhenafirstappointmentorpromotionismadeonprobationforaspecificperiodandtheemployeeisallowedtocontinueinthepostaftertheexpiryoftheperiodwithoutanyspecificorderofconfirmation,heshouldbedeemedtocontinueinhispostasaprobationeronlyintheabsenceofanyindicationtothecontraryintheoriginalorderofappointmentorpromotionortheservicerules.Underthesecircumstances,anexpressorderofconfirmationisimperativetogivetheemployeeasubstantiverighttothepostandfromthemerefactthatheisallowedtocontinueinthepostaftertheexpiryofthespecifiedperiodofprobation,itisdifficulttoholdthatheshouldbedeemedtohavebeenconfirmed.Whentheservicerulesfixedacertainperiodoftimebeyondwhichtheprobationaryperiodcannotbeextendedandanemployeeappointedorpromotedtoapostonprobationisallowedto

continueinthatpostaftercompletionofthemaximumperiodofprobationwithoutanexpressorderofconfirmation,hecannotbedeemedtocontinueinthatpostasaprobationerbyimplication.Itissoassuchanimplicationisspecifically-negativedbytheserviceruleforbiddingextensionoftheprobationaryperiodbeyondthemaximumperiodfixedbyit.14.InSamsherSinghv.StateofPunjabandanother,(1974)2SCC831theseven-JudgeBenchwasdealingwiththeterminationofservicesoftheprobationersunderRule9ofthePunjabCivilServices(PunishmentandAppeal)Rules,1952andRule7(3)ofthePunjabCivilServices(JudicialBranch)Rules,1951.Inthesaidcase,thelawlaiddownbytheConstitutionBenchinthecaseofDharamSingh(


18/22

supra)wasapprovedbutitwasdistinguishedbecauseofthelanguageoftherelevantrule,especiallyexplanationtoRule7(1),whichprovidedthateverysubordinateJudgeinthefirstinstancebeappointedonprobationfortwoyearsandthesaidperiodmaybeextendedfromtimetotimeeitherexpresslyorimpliedlysothatthetotalperiodofprobationincludingextensiondoesnotexceedthreeyears.TheexplanationtothesaidRulestipulatedthattheperiodofprobationshallbedeemedtohavebeenextendedifasubordinateJudgeisnotconfirmedontheexpiryoftheperiodofprobation.Beitnoted,reliancewasplacedonthedecisioninDharamSingh(supra).ThelargerBenchdiscussedtheprinciplelaiddowninDharamSinghscaseandproceededtostateasfollows:-

InDharamSinghscase(supra)therelevantrulestatedthattheprobationinthefirstinstanceisforoneyearwiththeprovisothatthetotalperiodofprobationincludingextensionshallnotexceedthreeyears.InDharamSinghscasehewasallowedtocontinuewithoutanorderofconfirmationandthereforetheonlypossibleviewintheabsenceofanythingtothecontraryintheServiceRuleswasthatbynecessaryimplicationhemustberegardedashavingbeenconfirmed.

Aftersostating,theBenchreferredtoRule7(1)andcametoholdasfollows:-

..................theexplanationtorule7(1)showsthattheperiodofprobationshallbedeemedtohavebeenextendedimpliedlyifaSubordinateJudgeisnotconfirmedontheexpiryofthisperiodofprobation.ThisimpliedextensionwhereaSubordinateJudgeisnotconfirmedontheexpiryoftheperiodofprobati

onisnotfoundinDharamSingh'scase(supra).Thisexplanationinthepresentcasedoesnotmeanthattheimpliedextensionoftheprobationaryperiodisonlybetweentwoandthreeyears.TheexplanationonthecontrarymeansthattheprovisionregardingthemaximumperiodofprobationforthreeyearsisdirectoryandnotmandatoryunlikeinDharamSingh'scase(supra)andthataprobationerisnotinfactconfirmedtillanorderofconfirmationismade.

(Emphasissupplied)

15.InOmPrakashMauryav.U.P.Co-operativeSugarFactoriesFederation,Lucknowandothers,AIR1986SC1844atwo-JudgeBenchwasdealingwiththecaseofconfirmationundertheU.P.CooperativeSocietiesEmployeesServiceRegulations,1975.AfterreferringtoRegulations17and18,itwasheldthatastheprovisot

oRegulation17restrictsthepoweroftheappointingauthorityinextendingtheperiodofprobationbeyondtheperiodofoneyearandRegulation18providesforconfirmationofanemployeeonthesatisfactorycompletionoftheprobationaryperiod,itcouldsafelybeheldthatthenecessaryresultofthecontinuationofanemployeebeyondtwoyearsofprobationaryperiodisthathewouldbeconfirmedbyimplication.16.InMunicipalCorporation,Raipurv.AshokKumarMisra,AIR1991SC1402whiledealingwithRule14oftheMadhyaPradeshGovernmentServantsGeneralConditionsofServiceRules,1961,afterreferringtoearlierpronouncements,ithasbeenheldthatiftherulesdonotempowertheappointingauthoritytoextendtheprobationbeyondtheprescribedperiod,orwheretherulesareabsentaboutconfirmationorpassingoftheprescribedtestforconfirmationitisanindicationofthesatisfactorycompletionofprobation.

17.ItisapttonoteherethatthelearnedcounselforboththesideshaveheavilyreliedonthedecisioninHighCourtofMadhyaPradeshthru.Registrarandothersv.SatyaNarayanJhavar,(2001)7SCC161:AIR2001SC3234.Inthesaidcase,thethree-JudgeBenchwasconsideringtheeffectandimpactofRule24oftheMadhyaPradeshJudicialService(Classification,RecruitmentandConditionsofServices)Rules,1955.ItmaybementionedthatthedecisionrenderedinDayaramDayalv.StateofM.P.,AIR1997SC3269whichwasalsoacaseunderRule24ofthesaidRules,wasreferredtothelargerBench.InDayaramDayal(supra),ithadbeenheldthatifnoorderforconfirmationwaspassedwithinthemaximumperiodofprobation,theprobationerjudicialofficercouldbedeemedtohaveb


19/22

eenconfirmedafterexpiryoffouryearsperiodofprobation.AfterreferringtothedecisionsinDharamSingh(supra),SukhbansSingh(supra)andShamsherSingh(supra)andotherauthorities,thethreeJudgeBenchexpressedthus:-

11.ThequestionofdeemedconfirmationinserviceJurisprudence,whichisdependentuponlanguageoftherelevantservicerules,hasbeensubjectmatterofconsiderationbeforethisCourttimeswithoutnumberinvariousdecisionsandtherearethreelinesofcasesonthispoint.Onelineofcasesiswhereintheservicerulesortheletterofappointmentaperiodofprobationisspecifiedandpowertoextendthesameisalsoconferredupontheauthoritywithoutprescribinganymaximumperiodofprobationandiftheofficeriscontinuedbeyondtheprescribedorextendedperiod,hecannotbedeemedtobeconfirmed.Insuchcasesthereisnobaragainstterminationatanypointoftimeafterexpiryoftheperiodofprobation.Otherlineofcasesisthatwherewhilethereisaprovisionintherulesforinitialprobationandextensionthereof,amaximumperiodforsuchextensionisalsoprovidedbeyondwhichitisnotpermissibletoextendprobation.Theinferenceinsuchcasesisthatofficerconcernedisdeemedtohavebeenconfirmeduponexpiryofthemaximumperiodofprobationincasebeforeitsexpiryorderofterminationhasnotbeenpassed.Thelastlineofcasesiswherethoughundertherulesmaximumperiodofprobationisprescribed,butthesamerequireaspecificactonthepartoftheemployerbyissuinganorderofconfirmationandofpassingatestforthepurposesofconfirmation.Insuchcases,evenifthemaximumperiodofprobationhasexpiredandneitheranyorderofconfirmationhasbeenpassednorthepersonconcernedhaspassedtherequisitetest,he

cannotbedeemedtohavebeenconfirmedmerelybecausethesaidperiodhasexpired.

(underliningisours)

Aftersostating,itwasfurtherclarifiedasfollows:-

38.OrdinarilyadeemedconfirmationofaprobationerariseswhentheletterofappointmentsostipulatesortheRulesgoverningserviceconditionsoindicate.IntheabsenceofsuchtermintheletterofappointmentorintherelevantRules,itcanbeinferredonthebasisoftherelevantRulesbyimplication,aswasthecaseinDharamSingh(supra).ButitcannotbesaidthatmerelybecauseamaximumperiodofprobationhasbeenprovidedinServiceRules,continuanceof

theprobationerthereafterwouldipsofactomustbeheldtobeadeemedconfirmationwhichwouldcertainlyruncontrarytoSevenJudgeBenchJudgmentofthisCourtinthecaseofShamsherSingh(supra)andConstitutionBenchdecisionsinthecasesofSukhbansSingh(supra),G.S.Ramaswamy(supra)andAkbarAliKhan(supra).

18.Regardbeinghadtotheaforesaidprinciples,thepresentRulehastobescannedandinterpreted.ThesubmissionofMr.Viswanathan,learnedseniorcounselfortheappellant,isthatthecaseathandcomeswithinthethirdcategoryofcasesasenumeratedinpara-11ofSatyaNarayanJhaver(supra).Thatapart,itisurged,theconceptofdeemedconfirmation,ipsofacto,wouldnotgetattractedasthereisneitheranyrestrictionnoranyprohibitioninextendingtheperiodofprobation.Onthecontrary,thewordsifconfirmedrequirefurtheractiontobe

takenbytheemployerinthematterofconfirmation.19.OnaperusalofRule4.9oftheRules,itisabsolutelyplainthatthereisnoprohibitionaswastherulepositioninDharamSingh(supra).Similarly,inOmPrakashMaurya(supra),therewasarestrictionundertheRegulationstoextendtheperiodofprobation.Thatapart,intherulesunderconsideration,thesaidcasesdidnotstipulatethatsomethingelsewasrequiredtobedonebytheemployerand,therefore,itwasheldthattheconceptofdeemedconfirmationgotattracted.20.Havingsoobserved,weareonlyrequiredtoanalysewhatthewordsifconfirmedintheircontextualusewouldconvey.TheDivisionBenchoftheHighCourthas


20/22

associatedthesaidwordswiththeentitlementoftheageofsuperannuation.Inourconsideredopinion,theinterpretationplacedbytheHighCourtisunacceptable.Thewordshavetobeunderstoodinthecontexttheyareused.Rule4.9hastobereadasawholetounderstandthepurportandwhattheRuleconveysandmeans.InReserveBankofIndiav.PeerlessGeneralFinanceandInvestmentCo.Ltd.andothers,(1987)1SCC424ithasbeenheldasfollows:-

Interpretationmustdependonthetextandthecontext.Theyarethebasesofinterpretation.Onemaywellsayifthetextisthetexture,contextiswhatgivesthecolour.Neithercanbeignored.Bothareimportant.Theinterpretationisbestwhichmakesthetextualinterpretationmatchthecontextual.Astatuteisbestinterpretedwhenweknowwhyitwasenacted.Withthisknowledge,thestatutemustberead,firstasawholeandthensectionbysection,clausebyclause,phrasebyphraseandwordbyword.Ifastatuteislookedat,inthecontextofitsenactment,withtheglassesofthestatute-maker,providedbysuchcontext,itsscheme,thesections,clauses,phrasesandwordsmaytakecolourandappeardifferentthanwhenthestatuteislookedatwithouttheglassesprovidedbythecontext.WiththeseglasseswemustlookattheActasawholeanddiscoverwhateachsection,eachclause,eachphraseandeachwordismeantanddesignedtosayastofitintotheschemeoftheentireAct.Nopartofastatuteandnowordofastatutecanbeconstruedinisolation.Statuteshavetobeconstruedsothateverywordhasaplaceandeverythingisinitsplace.

Keepingthesaidprincipleinview,wearerequiredtoappreciatewhatprecisely

thewordsifconfirmedcontextuallyconvey.RegardbeinghadtothetenoroftheRules,thewordsifconfirmed,readinpropercontext,conferastatusontheappointeewhichconsequentlyentitleshimtocontinueontheposttilltheageof55years,unlessheisotherwiseremovedfromserviceaspertheRules.21.Itisworthnotingthattheuseofthewordifhasitsownsignificance.Inthisregard,wemayusefullyrefertothedecisioninS.N.Sharmav.BipenKumarTiwariandothers,(1970)1SCC653.Inthesaidcase,athree-JudgeBenchwasinterpretingthewordsifhethinksfitasprovidedunderSection159oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1898.ItrelatedtotheexerciseofpowerbytheMagistrate.Inthatcontext,theBenchobservedthus:-

TheuseofthisexpressionmakesitclearthatSection159isprimarilymeanttogivetotheMagistratethepowerofdirectinganinvestigationincaseswher

ethepolicedecidenottoinvestigatethecaseundertheprovisotoSection157(1),anditisinthosecasesthat,ifhethinksfit,hecanchoosethesecondalternative.Iftheexpressionifhethinksfithadnotbeenused,itmighthavebeenarguedthatthissectionwasintendedtogiveinwidetermsthepowertotheMagistratetoadoptanyofthetwocoursesofeitherdirectinganinvestigation,orofproceedinghimselfordeputinganyMagistratesubordinatetohimtoproceedtoholdapreliminaryenquiryasthecircumstancesofthecasemayrequire.Withouttheuseoftheexpressionifhethinksfit,thesecondalternativecouldhavebeenheldtobeindependentofthefirst;buttheuseofthisexpression,inouropinion,makesitplainthatthepowerconferredbythesecondclauseofthissectionisonlyanalternativetothepowergivenbythefirstclauseandcan,therefore,beexercisedonlyinthosecasesinwhichthefirstclauseisapplicable.

22.InStateofTamilNaduv.KodaikanalMotorUnion(P)Ltd.,(1986)3SCC91theCourt,whileinterpretingthewordsiftheoffencehadnotbeencommittedasusedinSection10-A(1)oftheCentralSalesTaxAct,1956,expressedtheviewasfollows:-

Inouropiniontheuseoftheexpressionifsimpliciter,wasmeanttoindicateacondition,theconditionbeingthatatthetimeofassessingthepenalty,thatsituationshouldbevisualisedwhereintherewasnoscopeofcommittinganyoffence.Suchasituationcouldariseonlyifthetaxliabilityfellundersub-sect


21/22

ion(2)ofSection8oftheAct.

23.Bearinginmindtheaforesaidconceptualmeaning,whenthelanguageemployedunderRule4.9isscrutinised,itcansafelybeconcludedthattheentitlementtocontinuetilltheageofsuperannuation,i.e.,55years,isnotabsolute.Thepowerandrighttoremoveisnotobliterated.Thestatusofconfirmationhastobeearnedandconferred.Hadtherulemakingauthorityintendedthattherewouldbeautomaticconfirmation,Rule4.9wouldhavebeencouchedinadifferentlanguage.Thatbeingnotso,thewiderinterpretationcannotbeplacedontheRuletoinferthattheprobationergetsthestatusofadeemedconfirmedemployeeafterexpiryofthreeyearsofprobationaryperiodasthatwoulddefeatthebasicpurposeandintentoftheRulewhichclearlypostulatesifconfirmed.Aconfirmation,asisdemonstrablefromthelanguageemployedintheRule,doesnotoccurwitheffluxoftime.Asitishedgedbyacondition,anaffirmativeorpositiveactistherequisitebytheemployer.Inourconsideredopinion,anorderofconfirmationisrequiredtobepassed.TheDivisionBenchhasclearlyflawedbyassociatingthewordsifconfirmedwiththeentitlementoftheageofsuperannuationwithoutappreciatingthattheuseofthesaidwordsasafundamentalqualifiernegativesdeemedconfirmation.Thus,theirresistibleconclusionisthatthepresentcasewouldsquarelyfallinthelastlineofcasesashasbeenenumeratedinparagraph11ofSatyaNarayanJhaver(supra)and,therefore,theprincipleofdeemedconfirmationisnotattracted.24.Intheresult,theappealisallowedandthejudgmentandorderpassedbytheHighCourtaresetasidetotheextentthatthefirstrespondenthadacquired

thestatusofconfirmedemployeeand,therefore,holdingofenquiryisimperative.AsfarastheconclusionrecordedbytheDivisionBenchthatnostigmawascastontherespondentisconcerned,thesamehavinggone-unchallenged,theorderinthatregardisnotdisturbed.Thepartiesshallbeartheirrespectivecosts.

-------Aarushicase:CourtholdsTalwarsaccusedinthemurdersDrRajeshTalwarandhiswifeNupurTalwartalktomediapersonsinGhaziabadDrRajeshTalwarandhiswifeNupurTalwartalktomediapersonsinGhaziabad.TheAarushiTalwar-HemrajBanjadedoublemurdercase-possiblyIndia'smosthigh-profilehomicideinvestigationinrecenthistory-tookanewturnonWednesdaywhenacourtnamedtheslainteenager'sparentsastheprimeaccused.

TheCentralBureauofInvestigation(CBI)courtatGhaziabadrejectedtheagency'sclosurereportinthecaseandmadeDrsRajeshandNupurTalwaraccusedunderSection302(murder)andSection201(causingdisappearanceofevidenceofoffence)readwithSection34(actsdonebyseveralpersonsinfurtheranceofcommonintention)oftheIndianPenalCode(IPC).ClickheretoEnlargeThemediawerenotallowedtoenterthecourt,butaccordingtoCBIcounselR.K.Saini,specialjudicialmagistrate(CBI)PritiSinghsaidinherorder:"ThecourthasmadeRajeshandNupurTalwaraccusedandhasissuedsummonstothemaskingthemtoappearbeforethecourtonFebruary28."ThecourtalsorejectedtheTalwars'90-pageprotestapplicationseekingre-investigationofthecase.NupurTalwar,whosawhernameflashedontelevisionasthemurderaccused,saidshewas"shattered"."Letthedecisionmakersputthemselvesinmyshoesandsee

whatitmeansforamothertoloseheronlychild."AlthoughRajeshTalwarhadbeennamedasanaccusedearlier-forwhichhewasbrieflyincarceratedandisnowoutonbail-thisisthefirsttimethatthemotherhasbeennamed."Wearefightingtoproveourowninnocenceformorethantwoyearsnow,"NupurTalwartoldMailToday,immediatelyfollowingthedecision."Wearefightingthewrongbattlewhiletheculpritsareroamingfree.Thepremierinvestigatingagencyhasfailedusateverystep.ButwewillcontinuetofightandArushi'sloveremainsourdrivingforce."TheTalwars'counsel,SatishTamta,saidthedefenceisyettoreceivethecourt'sorder."Nothingcanbesaidatthisstage,"hesaid."Anystrategywouldbed


22/22

ecidedonlyafterthoroughlyreadingthecourt'sorder."ButseniorlawyerKhalidKhansaidthecourtwasrightintakingsuchadecision."Thecourthastakencognisanceonthebasisofmaterialfurnishedintheclosurereport,"hesaid."Thecourthasactedwellwithinitsjurisdictionanditsorderisproper.Thereisnoillegality."FormerUttarPradeshPolicechiefVikramSinghsaidtheinvestigationbytheNoidapolicewas"veryprofessionalandbasedonevidence".Hesaid:"Ourinvestigationwasveryprofessionalandhadnomalice."Singhwasthestate'sdirectorgeneralofpolicewhenthedoublemurdertookplaceonthemidnightofMay15,2008.SoonaftertheCBItookoverthecase,ithadalsonameddomestichelpsRajKumarSharma,VijayMandalandKrishnaastheaccused.TheircounselNareshYadavsaidonWednesday:"Thisisavictoryforjustice.Therehavealwaysbeenattemptstoimplicatethepoorservantswhohadnothingtodowiththecrime.Thecourthasvindicatedourstand."RebeccaJohn,theTalwars'familycounsel,blamedthemediafortheorder."Ithasalloccurredbecauseofmediahype,"shesaid,adding:"Everybodyhasbeensensationalisingtheissue.TheyhaveviewedtheparentsastheArushi'smurderers."Shesaidnooneinthemediaoramongthegeneralpublichadanysympathywiththeparentswhohadlosttheironlychild."Noonehasunderstoodtheirpainandtrauma,andtheyhaveconsistentlyhoundedthem,"shesaid.Rebeccaaddedthatwhiletheyareyettoexaminetheorder,"itischallengeable"."Thereissuchathingastheruleoflaw,"shesaid."Wewouldseekarevisi

oninthesuperiorcourt,whichmaybethesessionscourtortheAllahabadHighCourt."RajeshTalwar'ssister-in-lawVandanaTalwar,too,lashedatthemedia.Itisbecauseofthemediathatthishashappened,"shesaid."Thisismostunfortunate.Nowwedon'tknowwheretogo."Earlier,onTuesday,thecourtheardtheargumentsofbothsidesformorethanthreehours.TamtahadsubmittedthattheCBIclosurereporthadmanylooseendsandmanycrucialpointsremainedunexplained."WehadpersistentlyaskedtheCBItogettheLowCountNumber(LCN)DNAtestconductedinanyreputedlababroadbutitneverpaidheed,"Tamtasaid."Thetestwouldhaveyieldedsubstantialresultsbutthathadneverbeendonetodate."RajeshTalwar,stillrecoveringfromamurderousattackonhiminJanuaryoutsidethesameCBIcourt,said:"ItisthesystemthathasletAarushidown."HetoldMailToday:"Howlongwillthismockeryofjusticecontinue?Whydoesn'tanybo

dybelieveme?Whycan'tthecountryunderstandthatwehavelostAarushi,ouronlychild?IdideverythingtocooperatewiththeCBI,butIdon'tunderstandwhytheyaredoingthistome."Readmoreat:http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/aarushi-case-cbi-court-says-rajesh-talwar-and-nupur-talwar-are-accused-in-the-murders/1/129218.html-----

Documents

Arushi Murdar Case English