Talwars in HC against inclusion of more evidence by CBI
- PDP, BJP seal alliance to form government in Jammu & Kashmir
- RK Pachauri, accused of sexual harassment, quits UN climate change panel
- Centre's land bill is anti-farmer, says Kejriwal at Anna protest rally
- SpiceJet launches low-fare offer for Holi; one lakh seats on the block
- BJP defends Bhagwat, claims Mother Teresa admitted she was not a social worker
Dentist-couple Nupur and Rajesh Talwar, have approached the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the order of the Ghaziabad special CBI court allowing the investigating agency to file additional documents that would be considered as part of the evidence in the Aarushi-Hemraj murder case.
The couple are facing trial for the murder of their teenaged daughter Aarushi Talwar and domestic help Hemraj and destruction of evidence.
The Ghaziabad court had passed the order on September 29 after the CBI requested to put on record 10 additional documents, which had not been part of court documents earlier.
On September 27, the counsel representing Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, had objected to the application and had said the CBI had provided no reason as to why these documents were not included earlier.
The major bone of contention in this set of documents is a letter from CDFD, Hyderabad, which says its earlier stated position that "Hemraj's blood was found from a pillow cover in Krishna's room (the compounder employed in Rajesh Talwar's clinic)" was merely a typographical error.
The letter says there was "no blood found from Krishna's room". The other documents include a seizure memo of a Nokia N-72 phone, start-stop activity report of the internet router in the house, computer records, and call detail records.
Hearing the matter, a single judge bench of Justice Sunil Hali directed the CBI to file a detailed counter-affidavit in the matter.
Ravi Kiran Jain, counsel for Nupur and Rajesh Talwar, said: "Our main prayer before the court is that the lower court's order allowing admission of additional evidence at the trial stage should be quashed. The main ground for it is that permission has been sought by the investigating agency when already 16 witnesses have been examined during the course of trial. Also, our side was not heard before passing of the said order."