The approach of investigators towards crime related cases varies from one case to another. If any one of the victim and the killer is of repute, the follow-up is done accordingly, of course with exceptions. Some of the cases receive full media glare, while some others go unnoticed and are not even reported. The Aarushi-Hemraj murder case caught the attention and imagination of the people, media and investigative officials. The verdict in the case is now out but many questions still remain to be answered and looked into.
After more than five years of legal battle with lots of twist and turns, a special CBI court, on 25 November, ruled that Rajesh and Nupur Talwar were guilty of murdering their daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj. Shyam Lal, Additional Sessions Judge, pronounced life imprisonment for the Talwars for this double murder. Nupur Talwar has been found guilty under Sections 34, 302, and 201 of IPC, while Rajesh under Sections 34, 302, 201, and 203 of IPC.
“From the evidence as tendered by the prosecution in form of oral and documentary evidence this court reaches to the irresistible and impeccable conclusion that only the accused persons are responsible for committing this ghastly crime,” the 210-page order said, while pointing out 26 circumstances leading to the conviction.
According to the Judge, “The manner in which the murders were committed is not the handiwork of single accused and rather the murders were committed and evidence destroyed by both the accused in furtherance of their common intention which is apparent from the facts and circumstances.”
However, Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, in a statement, said, “We are deeply disappointed, hurt and anguished over conviction. We refuse to feel defeated and will continue to fight for justice and move the higher court.” The U-turn in the case emerged with the sensational allegation levelled by the Uttar Pradesh police, claiming that the killers were none other than her parents. After media scrutiny the then Chief Minister Mayawati handed over the Aarushi murder case to the CBI. Because of the heightened media glare and trial, the Supreme Court in August 2009 asked the media to refrain from sensational and scandalous reporting.
As per the judgement, the guilty are convicted under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Besides, Dr. Rajesh is also convicted under Section 203 of I.P.C. Both of them are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000 each; and in default of payment of fine they have to undergo six months simple imprisonment. They have also been sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.5,000 each; and in default of payment of fine they have to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. Dr. Rajesh is also sentenced to one year simple imprisonment under Section 203 of I.P.C. with a fine of Rs.2,000 and in default of payment of fine he has to undergo simple imprisonment of one month.
In an interview with the Times of India, the Talwars’ counsel, Rebecca John, termed it as the most “explosive” evidence in the case that, when rectified, was “surprisingly accepted by the court”. Defence lawyers are expected to strongly highlight this argument in their future appeal in Allahabad High Court.
“In State of Rajasthan Vs. Vinod Kumar (2012) 6 SCC 770 it has been observed that punishment should always be proportionate/ commensurate to the gravity of the offence. Religion, race, caste, economic or social status of the accused or victim is not the relevant factor for determining the quantum of punishment. The court has to decide the punishment after considering all aggravating and mitigating factors and the circumstances in which the crime has been committed. The court must exercise its discretion in imposing the punishment objectively considering the facts and circumstances of the case,” the judgement said.
There are many questions that will keep hovering as the legal battle will be fought from one court to the next. For example: Was there any affair between Aarushi and Hemraj? Did Rajesh and Nupur Talwar really killed Aarushi and Hemraj? Or, was there something else that led to the assault or it was yet another case of honour killing, or anything more than what could meet the eye. Can, under any circumstances, parents be allowed to kill their children?
These are complex questions. Here comes to mind the thought of a religion that has logical and reasonable solution to every problem whether complex or simple. It is Islam. The most striking part of the judgement, which says that the parents are the best protectors of their own children – that is the order of human nature but there have been freaks in the history of mankind when the father and mother became the killer of their own progeny, is that it noted: “They have extirpated their own daughter who had hardly seen 14 summers of her life and the servant without compunction from terrestrial terrain in breach of Commandment ‘Thou shall not kill’ and injunction of Holy Qur’ān – ‘Take not life, which God has made sacred’.”
Dr Javed Jamil in his recent article in the Muslim Mirror has reasonably said that the Aarushi case poses certain other questions that are not being discussed in the media. How come the parents would leave a 13-year old girl live in a separate room which was not adjacent to their own room? How come, they would allow male servants reside in the same house in the night and would not take care to keep their daughter from their reach? The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be with him) said, “A single rider is (accompanied with) Satan and two riders are (accompanied with) two Satans. Three riders form a group.” [At-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud]. The hadith points to the dangers of two coming together in a place of solitude. Whenever two are there, there is always a possibility of physical passions engulfing the two.
The message the Aarushi case gives is clear. Parents should take care of their sons and daughters and should not let such conditions emerge where they can be overcome by their unfulfilled desires. This has become increasingly necessary now, as boys and girls tend to marry as late as possible. Late marriages, free mixing and provocations all around are enough breeding grounds for all kinds of sexual misdemeanours. The media and the law come into action only when the misdemeanours lead to assaults.