people. Under Kaul’s instructions, this ‘scientific experiment’ was eventually conducted, but the low level of any actual science was evident from the props used, such as diluted Shalimar paint (red), which had none of the physical or chemical properties of blood except perhaps its colour. But this would only be conducted in December 2010, when the CBI’s closure report was being filed. For now, the ‘evidence gaps’ in Kaul’s and Dahiya’s theory had to be filled.
Aarushi’s post-mortem doctor had given an opinion, however belated, that Aarushi may have been engaged in sex with Hemraj. Dr Talwar appeared to have a motive. He was a father who felt enraged and was compelled to take his daughter’s life in the defence of family honour.
The CBI had begun to close in on a motive but what about the execution of the crime? For this, Kaul and Dahiya reminded themselves that Rajesh Talwar wasn’t just a father. He was also a doctor. Somebody, one would assume, who would be precise in the use of a surgical instrument.
Kaul then turned his attention to the paediatrician Dr Naresh Raj, the man who had conducted Hemraj’s autopsy. Both Dohare and Raj had earlier suggested that the khukri (recovered from Krishna’s house and sent to them for examination) may have caused the fatal blunt injuries, but the weapon’s cutting edge wasn’t sharp enough, so the possibility of it causing the slits to the throat was remote.
Kaul summoned Dr Raj to his office in Delhi and recorded a brief, telling, statement. On 12 October 2009, Dr Raj told Kaul that the injury to Hemraj’s neck was caused by a ‘very sharp edged light instrument’. Kaul wanted something more specific, so he asked Raj what inference he could draw from the fact that the cuts to the neck of both victims were identical. Raj said: ‘The identical position of the injury and the skill with which the cut was made clearly point towards a surgically trained person.’
At the time, the CBI had just one suspect. Dr Rajesh Talwar. And although he was a dentist, he did have some surgical training, didn’t he? It was a neat fit. The pieces of the new theory were falling in place, and there were ‘experts’ willing to testify on different aspects of it.
But one question remained. Dr Raj, like Dr Dohare, had mentioned none of this to earlier investigators. He was also on the AIIMS panel which was specifically asked to answer the same questions. He had said nothing. So why now?
There is one more thing worth mentioning here. Kaul never seized any of Dr Talwar’s surgical instruments. Throughout the investigation and the trial the prosecution insisted that a scalpel was used, but Kaul had never actually ever seen the kind of scalpels dentists use. He admitted that he hadn’t even bothered to buy one for the sake of curiosity. The question of having any expert examine even a likeness of the weapon never arose. As far as Kaul was concerned, the suggestion of surgical skill was enough.
In November, a month after Dr Raj’s new testimony, Kaul summoned Richa Saxena. That is when she firmly told Kaul that there had been no foul play with the slides of the vaginal swabs, and that she was willing to go through a lie detector or any other test if required.
***
While the issue of the cuts to the neck had now been ‘settled’ by Kaul and Dahiya, there was a small problem. According to the examiners, the victims’ necks had been slit either after they were dead or while they were dying. The blunt injuries that smashed their skulls had caused death. So even if a sharp, light weapon was used in the course of the murders, it wasn’t the murder weapon.
The post-mortem doctors and the AIIMS committee had so far said that the culprit had wielded a khukri, whose blunt side could have been used. But with the servants out of the frame of suspicion, so was the khukri. Rajesh Talwar’s feelings as a father and training as a doctor had fit into Kaul and Dahiya’s thesis. What
Aarushi’s post-mortem doctor had given an opinion, however belated, that Aarushi may have been engaged in sex with Hemraj. Dr Talwar appeared to have a motive. He was a father who felt enraged and was compelled to take his daughter’s life in the defence of family honour.
The CBI had begun to close in on a motive but what about the execution of the crime? For this, Kaul and Dahiya reminded themselves that Rajesh Talwar wasn’t just a father. He was also a doctor. Somebody, one would assume, who would be precise in the use of a surgical instrument.
Kaul then turned his attention to the paediatrician Dr Naresh Raj, the man who had conducted Hemraj’s autopsy. Both Dohare and Raj had earlier suggested that the khukri (recovered from Krishna’s house and sent to them for examination) may have caused the fatal blunt injuries, but the weapon’s cutting edge wasn’t sharp enough, so the possibility of it causing the slits to the throat was remote.
Kaul summoned Dr Raj to his office in Delhi and recorded a brief, telling, statement. On 12 October 2009, Dr Raj told Kaul that the injury to Hemraj’s neck was caused by a ‘very sharp edged light instrument’. Kaul wanted something more specific, so he asked Raj what inference he could draw from the fact that the cuts to the neck of both victims were identical. Raj said: ‘The identical position of the injury and the skill with which the cut was made clearly point towards a surgically trained person.’
At the time, the CBI had just one suspect. Dr Rajesh Talwar. And although he was a dentist, he did have some surgical training, didn’t he? It was a neat fit. The pieces of the new theory were falling in place, and there were ‘experts’ willing to testify on different aspects of it.
But one question remained. Dr Raj, like Dr Dohare, had mentioned none of this to earlier investigators. He was also on the AIIMS panel which was specifically asked to answer the same questions. He had said nothing. So why now?
There is one more thing worth mentioning here. Kaul never seized any of Dr Talwar’s surgical instruments. Throughout the investigation and the trial the prosecution insisted that a scalpel was used, but Kaul had never actually ever seen the kind of scalpels dentists use. He admitted that he hadn’t even bothered to buy one for the sake of curiosity. The question of having any expert examine even a likeness of the weapon never arose. As far as Kaul was concerned, the suggestion of surgical skill was enough.
In November, a month after Dr Raj’s new testimony, Kaul summoned Richa Saxena. That is when she firmly told Kaul that there had been no foul play with the slides of the vaginal swabs, and that she was willing to go through a lie detector or any other test if required.
***
While the issue of the cuts to the neck had now been ‘settled’ by Kaul and Dahiya, there was a small problem. According to the examiners, the victims’ necks had been slit either after they were dead or while they were dying. The blunt injuries that smashed their skulls had caused death. So even if a sharp, light weapon was used in the course of the murders, it wasn’t the murder weapon.
The post-mortem doctors and the AIIMS committee had so far said that the culprit had wielded a khukri, whose blunt side could have been used. But with the servants out of the frame of suspicion, so was the khukri. Rajesh Talwar’s feelings as a father and training as a doctor had fit into Kaul and Dahiya’s thesis. What
Similar Books
