views
Dasna (UP): Dentist couple Rajesh and Nupur Talwar’s four-year ordeal ended on Monday evening when they walked out of Ghaziabad’s Dasna Jail, four days after being acquitted of the 2008 murders of their teenage daughter Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj.
Police escorted the couple to the house of Nupur's parents in Noida's Jalvayu Vihar, the same locality where they stayed when their daughter and Hemraj were murdered. The couple were welcomed with a traditional aarti by Nupur’s mother.
There was mayhem on the road outside the jail with mediapersons scrambling to capture the Talwar couple walking out.
"A conspiracy had been hatched to implicate our clients," said the couple's lawyer Tanveer Ahmed Mir after their release, which comes just two days ahead of Diwali.
He added that the prosecution presented wrong evidence and requested the media to "let them live in peace".
The dentist couple have refused remuneration for their services to patients inside Dasna Jail, where they have been incarcerated since 2013, jail officials have said. According to jail authorities, there had been a sudden rush of patients who were in a "hurry" to get their treatment done from them. Jail Superintendent Dadhiram Maurya said that the amount would have been Rs 49,500.
The Talwars have been attending to patients since November 2013, when they were put behind bars.
Jail doctor Sunil Tyagi has said the Talwars have assured the authorities that they would visit the prison every 15 days to conduct check-ups on inmates.
Aarushi Talwar was found dead in her bedroom in the Talwars' Noida home on May 16, 2008. Hemraj's body was found the next day from his room on the terrace.
The Allahabad High Court in its October 12 verdict said neither the circumstances nor the evidence were enough to hold them guilty.
The High Court castigated the CBI for its theory on the murders, saying it is an "impossible hypothesis" and "patently absurd". In its 273-page verdict, it also said the prosecution "miserably failed" to prove that the Talwars had destroyed material evidence and added that the finding recorded to the contrary by the trial court could not be maintained.
Comments
0 comment