1

CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION OF TALVAR CASE

SEMESTER II

Submitted by: Vidhisha Agrawal

LEGAL ENGLISH
 2

DECLARATION

I make a statement that the research work is originally done by me and the content in it is not
given anywhere. The references of used content is mentioned and given appreciation. I state that
research paper is made by me and the work done is my own except where it is mentioned in the
text itself, and the work done in this paper is not been submitted by any other degree holder or
any university.

Vidh
isha Agrawal

LEGAL ENGLISH
 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would sincerely like to thank our Dean, Saurabh Sir, and our professor for the
subject of LEGAL English, Professor RIMA HORE for giving the opportunity to
work on this research paper and helping with out with the same.

Making this research paper has truly been an enlightening experience, apart from
giving me an occasion to be creative as much as I can. This project has given me
tremendous insight into the workings of the world of research and given a great
opportunity of putting forth my view, thus showing what is expected of me as a
researcher, making it extremely helpful for the future.

LEGAL ENGLISH
 4

ANALYSIS

The paper titled "A study of direct and circumstantial evidence with special reference to
‘Talvar’ the Aarushi Talwar case" delves into the meaning and application of direct and
circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect evidence. Direct evidence is testimony that
directly addresses a specific issue of contention and establishes that it is true without the use of
deductive logic or inference. An eye witness to a murder, for example, can be deemed direct
evidence. Circumstantial evidence describes a situation in which a witness is unable to
immediately advise you of a fact that must be established. Rather than providing direct
information, the witness provides proof of particular facts. This can assist in proving the claim
that needs to be proven. The purpose of this research paper is to examine the many features of
direct and circumstantial evidence, as well as how they are employed in different cases to reach a
case conclusion and the conviction of the accused. The report also looks at the Aarushi Talwar
case, which is a landmark case in which a person was convicted based on indirect evidence
rather than direct proof. The study also explores how, in the absence of any direct evidence and
just circumstantial evidence, a conviction can be made only on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. In the end, the paper states that courts apply direct evidence and circumstances based
on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Talvar is a 2015 Indian Hindi-language thriller drama film directed by Meghna Gulzar and
written by Vishal Bhardwaj that was distributed globally as Guilty. The film is based on the 2008
Noida double murder case involving a teenage girl and her family's servant, and is produced by
Bhardwaj and Vineet Jain. The film, which stars Irrfan Khan, Konkona Sen Sharma, and Neeraj
Kabi, chronicles the investigation of a crime from three different perspectives: the police inquiry,
the first Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe, and an investigation by a different CBI
team.

Shruti Tandon, 14, was discovered dead at her house in Sameer Vihar, Noida, by her parents,
Ramesh and Nutan, on the night of March 15–16, 2008. The local police search for Khempal, the

LEGAL ENGLISH
 5

missing servant, but his decomposed body is eventually discovered on the terrace of the Tandons'
building. The police question Kanhaiya, a close friend of Khempal's and the Tandons' assistant,
who claims that Khempal had a sexual relationship with Shruti. They start to mistrust the
Tandons and deem the assassinations to be clear cases of honour killings. The police in Noida
apprehend Ramesh for the murders on March 25. The police head holds a news conference
during which he claims Ramesh murdered Shruti and Khempal after discovering them in a
compromising situation, blaming it on honour killings. The case is handed to Joint Director
Ashwin Kumar of the Central Department of Investigation (CDI) and ACP Vedant as a result of
the public outrage over Shruti's victim blaming. Kumar hates the inept first responders that
botched the initial investigation. He is confident that the parents are not guilty, and he
meticulously builds a case against the father's dissatisfied aide. His team uses narco testing to
prove that the assistant (along with two accomplices) was responsible for the murders. Ramesh is
released from prison on June 22, 2008, after Kumar exonerates the parents. Kumar's senior
officer resigns, and a new CDI chief is appointed just as Kumar prepares to wrap up his
investigation. ACP Vedant begins working against Kumar in order to further his career. As a
result of the altercation between the two officers, Kumar is suspended. The CDI transfers the
case to a new investigation team led by Kumar's prior employer, Paul, who determines that the
parents are to blame for the murders. With competing hypotheses, both investigating teams
present their cases to the CDI head. The CDI files a closure report in Ghaziabad court, listing the
parents as main suspects, but there isn't enough evidence to indict them. The Tandons are found
guilty of the killings some months after the trial begins on June 8, 2012.

The movie focuses on how the two victims were treated by the police, the CBI, and the court
system. They were able to sway the case by altering the conditions and emphasising specific
aspects without considering the possibility of alternative explanation. For example, why Mrs
Tandon exclaimed "Khempal ne kya kiya!" (What did Khempal do! ), which seemed like she
was trying to frame him on purpose.

As a result, the reports produced by the two CBI groups indicated two different possible
resolutions for the case. As a result, in a situation where a conviction is based on circumstantial
evidence, the court must accept the circumstances that support the accused, and the accused must
be given the benefit of the doubt.

LEGAL ENGLISH
 6

However, in this case, the court overlooked the concerns and the follow-up, and the Talwar
couple, Rajesh Talwar and Nupur Talwar were condemned based on an incidental confirmation
without properly constructing the confirmation. As a result, the accused, Rajesh Talwar and
Nupur Talwar did not benefit from the uncertainty.

The onus on public officials in this regard is enormous, and their investigations must be thorough
and thorough, so that justice is served meticulously, unlike in the instance of Aarushi Talwar,
where the accused couple was denied the benefit of the doubt, resulting in incorrect justice.

CONCLUSION

LEGAL ASPECT:

The Talwars' family and friends claimed that the authorities were attempting to frame them in
order to cover up the botched investigation. After that, the matter was turned over to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Most of the evidences were tampered with and ruined by the
police owing to their carelessness, and the crime scene was completely destroyed because there
were so many people there when the inquiry was conducted, leaving only circumstantial
evidence. The term "evidence" refers to the proof presented in court to support or refute
contested facts. Evidence comes from the Latin word evidentia, which means distinctiveness,
vivid display, and clarity. Oral and documentary evidence are examples of evidence. All
comments made before the Court by witnesses in connection to matters of fact under
investigation (oral evidence) and all documents, including electronic records, produced for the
Court's examination (documentary evidence).

TUTORED WITNESS:

Anywhere in the globe, an account offered by a coached witness is not evidence. The Talwars'
maid, Bharti Mandal, was the first witness at the crime scene in this case. As a result, her
testimony was critical in this case. However, she revealed in court that she was repeating what
she had been taught, and rather than dismissing her testimony, the judge relied on it, adding,
"Even though she has been instructed, I trust in her testimony because she belongs to the lower
strata of society."

LEGAL ENGLISH
 7

BURDEN OF PROOF:

THE BURDEN OF PROOF FALLS ON THE DEFENDANTS IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH AS

WHEN A MYSTERY IS TRULY A CLOSED-DOOR MYSTERY. THE DOOR WAS NOT LOCKED FROM THE
INSIDE IN THIS CASE, THOUGH. AS A RESULT, THE PROSECUTION, AS IN PREVIOUS SIMILAR CASES,
BORE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THIS CASE. THE PROSECUTION MUST ESTABLISH ITS CASE

BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. THE TALWARS, ON THE OTHER HAND, WERE ACQUITTED AND

CLEARED OF ALL ACCUSATIONS BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO ESTABLISH IT BEYOND A

REASONABLE DOUBT.

NARCO ANALYSIS:

THE NARCO ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF AND PARENTS WAS USED BY THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION TO COME TO THIS CONCLUSION. THE USE OF A NARCOTICS TOOL SHOULD ONLY

BE UTILISED TO PROGRESS AN INVESTIGATION, NOT TO END OR CONCLUDE ONE. HOWEVER, IT IS

OF LAW.

Direct and circumstantial evidence are both permitted and allowed as means of demonstrating
the facts, according to the law. The law does not give preference to one type of evidence over
another. It depends on the facts of each case and how much weight should be given to each type
of evidence, such as direct and circumstantial evidence. These differ in each situation based on
the specifics of the case. Circumstantial evidence is frequently contested since it carries less
weight and value than direct evidence. However, in practice and according to the law, this is not
always the case. One of the fundamental disadvantages of direct evidence is that it relies solely
on the evidence to prove its existence, with no thought or reasoning involved. In a situation when
an eyewitness to the crime is present, there is a risk that the eyewitness will offer false or
malicious testimony in court. In today's world, circumstantial evidence is valued as well as direct
evidence to deliver justice properly and prevent the misuse of direct evidence.

In practice, if there is direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence, the court considers
itself to be on safe ground in convicting the accused. However, in any scenario where there is no
direct proof and only indirect evidence is available, the court scrutinizes the evidence with such

LEGAL ENGLISH
 8

care that any form of hypothesis in favor of the accused is removed, and the accused is found
guilty.

REFERENCES

Yash Tandon, the distinction between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
333748001_A_CRITICAL_REVIEW_OF_FORENSIC_INVESTIGATION_IN_INDIA_case_in
_point_Arushi_hemraj_Murder_Case

. https://journal.indianlegalsolution.com/2019/10/15/critical-analysis-of-arushi-talwar-murder-
case-pragya-jain-taniya-roy/

https://thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/KrishnaPareekh.pdf

https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=aarushi%20talwar

“Talvar (Film) - Wikipedia.” Talvar (Film) - Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org, 14 Sept. 2015,

Nair, Karthika S. “Talvar Review: A Film That Raises Many Questions.” Feminism In India,
feminisminindia.com, 12 Oct. 2015, https://feminisminindia.com/2015/10/12/talvar-review-a-
film-that-raises-many-questions/.

Sabri, Sharmin. “Talvar. (Here’s My Analysis of the Movie… | by Sharmin Sabri | Medium.”
Medium, medium.com, 13 Mar. 2018, https://medium.com/@sharminsabri/talvar-a0cc6491e6dd.

“Talvar: Double-Edged - The Hindu.” Talvar: Double-Edged - The Hindu, www.thehindu.com,

LEGAL ENGLISH
 9

LEGAL ENGLISH