Injury on head of Aarushi, Hemraj not from golf club, says defence witness
Dr R K Sharma, former head of forensic sciences at AIIMS told a Ghaziabad court on Wednesday that a golf club could not have caused the injuries on the heads of Aarushi Talwar and Hemraj. Sharma is deposing as one of seven defence witnesses for Rajesh and Nupur Talwar who are on trial for the murder of their daughter Aarushi and domestic aide Hemraj on the intervening night of May 15 and 16, 2008.
According to the CBI’s theory, Rajesh Talwar had attacked Aarushi and Hemraj with a golf club that he owned, causing injuries to the back of their heads. The CBI also maintained that the doctor couple slit the throat of both the victims using a scalpel.
However, during his cross-examination, Sharma told court that the injuries on the heads of both the victims could not have been caused by a golf club.
“If the golf club is not swung with force, then there will be no fracture at all. In my inquiry report, I have attached literature which confirms that the injury caused by a golf club swung with force will be a ‘depressed fracture’. The literature quoted shows injuries caused by both careless handling of a golf club and when it is used with full force. There will be a depressed fracture when the entire arm is used. In this case, however, the post-mortem report of both the victims says there was only a ‘fracture’,” Sharma said.
He also told the court that “by and large”, a khukri is used to slit the neck. “Those who use khukri are trained and an injury caused by a khukri will be of one type. The handling of a khukri is taught to children in Garhwal and Nepal, who then use it to kill goats and chicken,” Sharma said. In previous testimonies, the counsel representing the Talwars maintained that neck injuries were not caused by a surgical scalpel but a khukri. During investigations a blood-stained khukri was found from the room of Krishna, an ex-employee of Rajesh Talwar, but the bloodstains could not be identified. Krishna, who was Talwar’s compounder, is from Nepal, as is Hemraj.
Sharma also told the court that if the person attacked puts up resistance, then it was likely that the victim’s hands would be injured. “If the person puts up resistance, the tendency is to try to hold the weapon which would possibly result in injuries to the hands. However, if the victim has been incapacitated, no resistance is possible,” Sharma said.
On Tuesday, Sharma had told the court that Aarushi would not have been able to raise the alarm after she was struck on the head.
Deposing before the court he had said, “If a child of 13 or 14 years is lying on a bed and she has a wound measuring 8 cm by 2 cm, she would have fallen unconscious immediately after the blow was struck and would have not been able to cry for help. The wound on Aarushi would have caused a great amount of blood loss and she would have been incapacitated immediately.”
Sharma had also told court that the cut on Aarushi’s neck could not have been made in one stroke by “scalpel number 10”.
According to CBI, the Talwars had made the cuts with a surgical scalpel, as they are both dentists and have easy access to medical equipment.
18 hurt after Singapore's worst rioting in decades
Shivraj leads BJP to third time win in Madhya Pradesh