Central to the honour killing theory was the presence of Dr Talwar, Aarushi and Hemraj in her bedroom at that late hour. The theory was buttressed by the "crime scene analysis based on photographs" done in October 2009 by a forensic scientist from Gandhinagar, MS Dahiya, who rejected the previous year's finding of an AIIMS committee that Hemraj had been assaulted and killed on the rooftop (where his body had been found).
Dahiya's note made an erroneous assertion: "The presence of the blood of Hemraj on the pillow in the bedroom of Aarushi, however, negates that plea conclusively." Since there was, in fact, no such forensic evidence of Hemraj's blood in Aarushi's room, the CBI did not place any reliance on Dahiya's expert opinion while filing its statutory "final report" in December 2010. On the contrary, while recommending closure of the case, the CBI conceded in its 2010 report there was "no evidence to prove that Hemraj was killed in the room of Aarushi".
Given this background, the biggest challenge before CBI during the trial was to show somehow that Aarushi and Hemraj had been found in her room by Rajesh "in a compromising position". The agency tried to prove that scenario by claiming for the first time, at that stage, that another pillow had been recovered from Aarushi's room: Exhibit 21 belonging to Hemraj. This claim was made by forensic scientist B K Mohapatra in the trial court when he was being examined by the prosecution. But then, when the defence counsel demanded that the seal of the exhibit be opened in the court, it turned the tables on the prosecution. For, a cloth tag inside the cover said: "Pillow and pillow cover, blood-stained (from servant's room)".
This meant that the pillow bearing Hemraj's blood had been seized from his room and not from Aarushi's, and therefore could not in any way have been passed off as evidence vindicating the honour killing theory.
The prosecution's attempts to prove the love affair on the basis of post-mortem reports of the two murdered persons were equally dubious. As there was no evidence of any semen in Aarushi's vagina, the prosecution made insinuations on the basis of the condition of the genitals of the two dead persons. This was despite the fact that, after doing an external examination of her genitals in the course of the post-mortem investigation, Sunil Dohre simply wrote 'NAD', which is an abbreviation for "nothing abnormal detected".
Sixteen months later, when the CBI recorded his second testimony, Dohre came up with revelations that had never been documented before: that Aarushi's hymen had been ruptured and that there was unusual dilation of her vaginal opening. When the defence counsel asked him in the trial court why he had not mentioned any of these findings in his post-mortem report, he just said that his assessment was "subjective" in nature.
The doctor who had conducted Hemraj's post-mortem, Naresh Raj, tried to substantiate the prosecution's case by pointing to the swollen condition of Hemraj's penis, when his body had been discovered two days after the double murder. According to Raj, the swollen penis indicated that at the time of his murder, Hemraj was either preparing for sex or was already in the act.
When the defence counsel confronted him with medical literature saying that a swollen penis was common to putrefied bodies, Raj said his opinion was not scientific but based on his personal experience as a "married man".
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
Aarushi-Hemraj murder: Honour killing theory: CBI ties itself up in knots
Dengan url
http://sehatputihgigiku.blogspot.com/2013/11/aarushi-hemraj-murder-honour-killing.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
Aarushi-Hemraj murder: Honour killing theory: CBI ties itself up in knots
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
Aarushi-Hemraj murder: Honour killing theory: CBI ties itself up in knots
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar