The document summarizes the timeline and key details of the 2008 Noida double murder case in India, where 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar and domestic help Hemraj were found murdered in the Talwar residence. The investigation was initially handled by the Noida police but was transferred to the CBI due to concerns of a botched investigation. The CBI took over on June 1, 2008 and investigated multiple suspects including Aarushi's parents but was unable to establish a motive or file charges. The case remains unsolved and controversial.
ICT Role in 21st Century Education & its Challenges.pptx
85838994 arushi-murdar-case-english
1. http://www.supremelaw.in/2012/02/tn-godavarman-thirumulpad-vs-union-of.html
Oneindia hindi -----Noida double murder case From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Whether to make the |reason= mandatory
for the {{cleanup}} template is being dis cussed. See the request for comment to
help reach a consensus. This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's
quality standards. (Consider using more specific cleanup instructions.) Please
help improve this ar ticle if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions.
(March 2011) Unbalanced scales.svg The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message
until the dispute is resolved. (March 2011) Globe icon The examples and
perspective in this article or section might have an ex tensive bias or
disproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions. P lease improve
this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. On May 16, 2008, Aarushi
Talwar, a 14-year-old Class IX student of Delhi Public School in Noida and the
daughter of a successful dentist couple, was found dead with her throat slit in
her parents' home at Jalvayu Vihar in [Noida, Uttar Prad esh]. Suspicion
initially fell on the family's live-in manservant Hemraj, who wa s missing.
Noida police declared him the prime suspect. However the following da y,
following a trail of blood, in the Talwar's home, police found the dead body
Hemraj on the terrace. After a disorganized investigation, the police arrested D
r. Rajesh Talwar, the father of the deceased girl on May 23, 2008, charging him
with having committed the double murder. He confessed to killing Aarushi and Hem
raj to the Police on the night of his arrest but later retracted his confession.
His wife, Dr. Nupur Talwar(Arushi Talwar s mother, runs a dental clinic),
accused the Noida police of framing him, and requested Uttar Pradesh chief
minister May awati to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI).This was done at the behest of the media attention on the case.
Furthermore there were r eports of the case being handed over to the CBI. The
Central Bureau of Investigation took over the investigation into the murders of
Aarushi and Hemraj on June 1, 2008, forming a 25-member team in an attempt t o
crack the case. Soon after the CBI took over the case, Uttar Pradesh chief min
ister Mayawati gave transfer orders to senior police officers who were part of t
he Special Investigation Team (SIT) that had previously been in charge of the in
vestigation, including the Noida Senior Superintendent of Police, Satish Ganesh,
and Meerut Inspector General, Gurdarshan Singh. and family In addition, the dep
utation of CBI officer Arun Kumar, formerly a member of the Uttar Pradesh Police
, who was in charge of the investigation also ended in July, 2008.[1] Contents
[hide] 1 2 3 4 5 6 Significance of the Case CBI: Getting there CBI Investigation
Timeline of the Case References See also
[edit] Significance of the Case The case received nationwide attention, and has
become symptomatic of what most people believe are recent unsavoury tendencies
in the Indian media, such as sens ationalism, the urge to "overkill" and to
carry out a public trial-by-media.[2]
2. The Union Minister for Women and Child Development, Renuka Chowdhury, condemned
the police for what she called the "character assassination" of a child victim a
nd called for a commission of legal experts to investigate whether specific legi
slation existed or needed to passed in order to allow filing of defamation suits
against the Noida police, a government agency.[3] In addition, the focus by
24hour cable news on speculative aspects of the personal lives of the father and
h is dead daughter, and the media frenzy that compromised the privacy of the
famil ies involved in the case has caused comparisons to be made to the JonBenet
Ramse y case in the United States.[4] The case has also attracted a lot of
public atte ntion as a bizarre whodunit,[5] with the CBI reporting that the
agency had been receiving a large number of telephone calls from members of the
general public, giving investigators ideas and advice on how to solve the case.
[6] I n addition, the story hit the blogosphere in a major way with many Indian
bloggers avidly a nd enthusiastically blogging about the murder mystery[7] The
remainder of this article (content appearing below) may require clea nup to meet
Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you ca n, and move
or remove this notice if appropriate. (July 2010) [edit] CBI: Getting there This
article contains too many or too-lengthy quotations for an encyclop edic entry.
Please help improve the article by editing it to take facts from exc essively
quoted material and rewrite them as sourced original prose. Consider tr
ansferring direct quotations to Wikiquote. (July 2010) [edit] CBI Investigation
CBI investigators charged the Noida police with a shoddy investigation, which, i
t claimed, had resulted in the destruction of 90% of the evidence on the crime s
cene. Aside from not capturing the finger prints on the whisky bottles in
Hemraj's roo m, the police allowed the media to freely roam the crime scene
rather than restr icting access to the flat. In addition, the police allowed
doctors, not specifically trained in forensic pa thology, to conduct the
autopsies of Hemraj and Aarushi. While it is established procedure to lift
fingerprints (of both murderers and victims) from the skin of the victims.[8]
the doctors entrusted with the autopsies neglected to call fore nsic scientists
to lift fingerprints from the cadavers. On August 11, 2008, the CBI reported
that it had evidence pointing to the presence of a fifth person in the house at
the time of the murders, as finger prints not matching any of the s uspects or
occupants of the house were found on the whisky bottles. Experts at the All
India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), who are working closely with the
CBI, have raised questions over one entry in Arushi s post mortem report. The
report, dated May 16 and prepared by Sunil Dore for the Noida polic e, mentions
whitish discharge from the vagina which AIIMS doctors say wasn t investi gated.
They have raised this issue with the CBI. It is the duty of the doctors and the
investigating officer to collect all biolog ical evidence. As per law, it is
mandatory to write about it in the post mortem report which is legal evidence.
But in this case no further investigation was do ne on the evidence that they
got from natural orifices, Sudhir Gupta, associate p rofessor, forensic
medicine, AIIMS, told The Indian Express. The post mortem report says that
various organs including stomach with contents, samples from small intestine,
gall bladder, spleen and one kidney were preserve d, sealed and sent for
examination to rule out poisoning. However, the report doesn t mention whether a
vaginal swab was sent for further inv estigation, said Gupta. The whitish
discharge could be attributed to several cause s, from a fungal infection,
common at this age, to even sexual assault. But in a
3. murder case, this was a serious biological finding which required deliberation.
No such type of biological evidence was collected and sealed by the doctor who
prepared the autopsy, he added. Sources in the agency emphasised that unlike in
an "unoccured case" where a clos ure report is filed because the incident under
investigation was not found to ha ve occurred, the report filed in the Aarushi
case does not shut the possibility of renewed investigation if a new, strong
evidence comes up. Pinaki Mishra, Dr T alwar's counsel, strongly reacted to the
closure report, calling it a pack of in nuendos. "This is the most unfair
verdict that could have been given. They (Talw ars) are being pronounced guilty
until proved innocent. Without having filed a c hargesheet, the CBI is
condemning them to live the life of a guilty. I have no d oubt that the entire
investigation is derailed by taking the line of UP police just damn them without
evidence," he said. The CBI does not debunk the defence of Talwars completely,
with sources acknowle dging that the probe failed to establish the motive behind
the murder. They also said the dummy run conducted by them to verify Talwars'
claim that they could n ot have heard of what was happening in the next room
because of noise from their AC, shows that they could have slept through the
crime. It also says the narco tests run on the couple show only "minor
deceptions". But the report lists "circ umstantial evidence" to say why they
continue to treat Dr Rajesh Talwar as the p rime suspect in the case. Sources
claim the "circumstantial evidence" is so stro ng that Dr Talwar could have been
chargesheeted had he not been a parent. The cl osure report says the crime scene
was "dressed up" before the police was called so mething that is not associated
with a regular criminal. Sources said that Noida police's failure to secure the
crime scene was another r eason why the agency was left only with circumstantial
evidence. Blood stain on the whisky bottle found in Talwars' house did not match
the samples of either Aa rushi or Hemraj. The report asserts that both Aarushi
and Hemraj died of injurie s from a blunt weapon, and that the cuts on their
neck were inflicted when they were already dead. [edit] Timeline of the Case May
16, 2008 Aarushi Talwar, daughter of a dentist couple, found dead with her
throat sli t in the bedroom of her flat in Jalvayu Vihar. Based on the Talwars'
claim, missing domestic help Hemraj (Nepalese national ) suspected of murder.
May 17, 2008 Hemraj's body found on the terrace of Talwar's house. Noida Sector-
20 police Station Officer (S.O.) Dataram Nauneria shifted for l apses in
investigations. Autopsy report rules out sexual assault. May 18, 2008 Delhi
Police join murder probe; police say murder committed by a "doctor or a
butcher". May 22, 2008 Family under suspicion; honor killing angle probed Police
quiz Aarushi's close friend, whom she spoke to 688 times in the 45 da ys
preceding her murder.
4. May 23, 2008 Aarushi's father Dr. Rajesh Talwar arrested for the two murders.
June 13, 2008 The Nepalese compounder of Dr. Rajesh Talwar, Krishna (alias
Kishan) arreste d by CBI. The arrest follows polygraph test and Narco Analysis
test at Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Bangalore the day before. He was
earlier subjected to polygraph test twice at Central Forensic Science Laboratory
(CFSL), Delhi as wel l as psychological assessment test at AIIMS, New Delhi on
June 9, 2008; based on the test results, CBI arrested Krishna. June 14, 2008
Krishna the compounder of Dr. Rajesh Talwar produced before the duty magistr
ate, district courts, Ghaziabad. CBI requests for 14 days police custody of Kris
hna for further investigation. The Magistrate grants 3 days police custody reman
d. He is to be produced before the Special Magistrate for CBI cases at Ghaziabad
on June 17, 2008. A CBI team had earlier conducted a search at Krishna's former
premises at Jalvayu Vihar, Noida and seized some clothing and other materials f
or forensic examination. Rajkumar, the Nepalese domestic help of the Duranis, wa
s subjected to polygraph test at CFSL, Delhi. June 19, 2008 Judicial custody of
Dr. Rajesh Talwar extended up to July 2, 2008. An applic ation is moved for a
second lie detection test of Dr. Rajesh Talwar, as his firs t lie detection test
remained inconclusive. A lie detector test is also conducte d on Vijay Mandal,
the domestic help of a neighbor of the Talwars. June 17, 2008 Krishna produced
before special magistrate, CBI court, Ghaziabad. CBI applie s for further 11
days police custody remand to continue the investigation. The m agistrate grants
6 days police custody. He is to be produced before the CBI magi strate,
Ghaziabad on June 23, 2008. A team accompanied by a forensic expert search the
room where Rajkumar used to live in Sector 53, Noida. Material seized from the
room on June 13, 2008 is f orensically examined. June 20, 2008 Lie detection
test of Dr. Rajesh Talwar conducted at CFSL, Delhi. June 23, 2008 Krishna
produced before the special magistrate, CBI courts, Ghaziabad. CBI r equests
further custody of Krishna for 4 days for further interrogation and reco very of
weapon. The magistrate passes an order extending his police custody by 4 days.
He is to be produced before the Court on June 27, 2008. June 25, 2008 Second lie
detection test conducted on Dr. Nupur Talwar. Her first lie detec tion test was
found inconclusive. June 26, 2008 The CBI declares the case to be a "blind
case". Dr. Rajesh Talwar refused ba
5. il by the special magistrate, CBI courts, Ghaziabad. June 27, 2008 Krishna taken
to Talwars' residence by the CBI and thereafter produced befor e the special
magistrate, where his bail plea is rejected once again. The Talwar s' family
friends Duranis' Nepalese domestic help Rajkumar arrested on the suspi cion of
involvement in the murder. Washed T-shirts with faint human blood stains seized
and sent for DNA matching. However, the Duranis (doctors themselves) mai ntain
that the stains could be from the boils that Rajkumar had on his body. Raj kumar
had already been subjected to polygraph test, psychological assessment, br ain
mapping and narco analysis at FSL, Gandhinagar from June 23 to June 26, 2008 .
June 28, 2008 Rajkumar produced before special magistrate, CBI court, Ghaziabad
and is sen t to police custody for 14 days. June 30, 2008 Krishna's lawyer
approaches a Ghaziabad court for bail. Bail is refused as t he court that was
approached does not have sufficient powers in this case. CBI joint director in
charge of the investigation, Arun Kumar, is recalled t o his original cadre in
Uttar Pradesh. June 31, 2008 News channel AAJ TAK, airs reports that Vijay
Mandal, a new face, is also in volved in the Noida double murder. July 2, 2008
Dr. Rajesh Talwar is produced before special magistrate, CBI court, Ghaziaba d
again. His bail plea is rejected and his judicial custody extended till July 1
1, 2008. CBI says he is still among the suspects. July 3, 2008 The Supreme court
of India rejects a public interest litigation (PIL) case c hallenging the
administration of narco-analysis test on the accused. A bench hea ded by Justice
Altamas Kabir refuses to hear the petion, as the petitioner, a la wyers' body,
was an unregistered entity. July 6, 2008 An English daily [9] reveals that on
the night the murders were committed, t he couple Dr. Rajesh and Dr. Nupur left
their flat around midnight and came back around 5 AM. They were at a high
society party for which 12 suites were booked in a posh South Delhi hotel. July
7, 2008 Dr. Nupur Talwar refuses the allegations regarding their absence on the
nigh t of the murders. She also expresses her intention to take legal action
against the media house. CBI releases an official statement on their site,
stating, "A section of med ia has reported quoting CBI sources that Dr. Rajesh
Talwar and Dr. Nupur Talwar were not present in their house on the night of 15th
May, 2008 and more than a d ozen rooms were booked in a hotel in Delhi. It is
clarified that the news item i
6. s speculative and not true. Investigation of the case is progressing diligently.
" Some other TV channels debate the merits of her and CBI's affirmations in th e
light of glaring gaps in the Talwars' story. July 9, 2008 Rajkumar, the domestic
help of the Durranis, is subjected by CBI to a second narco-analysis test at
FSL[disambiguation needed ] Bangalore. July 10, 2008 News reports on some TV
channels suggest that the CBI has had a breakthrough on Rajkumar as the culprit
and has confessed during the narco-analysis test. He is learned to have
committed the murder along with Krishna, Sambhu and Hemraj. The reason for the
first murder, as told by Rajkumar, was lust and Hemraj was ki lled for fear that
he might have disclosed information. July 11, 2008 Vijay Mandal (alias Sambhu)
the servant one of the neighbors of the Talwars is arrested by the CBI. In a
press conference, Arun Kumar, Joint Director CBI, states that the CBI i s
awaiting DNA matching of washed blood stains on Rajkumar's T-shirts. He confir
ms that the CBI still considered this a blind case and expresses the hope that t
he case will be solved soon. Dr. Rajesh Talwar and Krishna appear before a
special CBI court, Ghaziabad t o seek bail. Their petitions are heard and Dr.
Rajesh Talwar is released on bail , for lack of evidence. Eminent criminal
lawyer R. K. Anand undertakes the defen ce of Krishna. CBI believes two or three
domestic helps and Krishna to be the prime suspect s. However, the forensic
evidence is not admissible as evidence in the court. The murder weapon and the
two cellphones respectively of Aarushi and Hemraj are still missing. July 12,
2008 Dr. Rajesh Talwar is freed on bail from the Dasna Jail in Ghaziabad. The
new s of his release brings back widespread media attention to the case. Vijay
Mandal is sent to 3-days' CBI custody by the court of additional chief judicial
magistrate Dinesh Kumar in Ghaziabad.[10] Vijay Mandal has been accuse d under
302, 201, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). July 15, 2008 Vijay Mandal's
police custody extended for four more days.[11] The CBI expec ted to find the
murder weapon and the cellphones of Aarushi and Hemraj with Mand al's help. July
16, 2008 An association of Nepalese citizens alleges that Krishna and Rajkumar
are be ing pressurized to make confessional statements.[12] July 18, 2008 CBI
has not seized any evidence and is yet to receive a crucial forensic rep ort on
accused Rajkumar, according to media reports. It has weakened the case ag ainst
the three prime suspects Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal. The CBI claim s
near closing of the case when preliminary reports from Hyderabad's Centre for
7. DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics, suggests that identifying the blood on the T
-shirt "may or may not be possible", according to media reports.[13] Separating
DNA from garments after a lapse of two months is not always possible, because of
the disintegration of the red blood cells on the cloth. July 19, 2008 Vijay
Mandal sent into police custody for four more days. July 21 Rastriya Jana Morcha
(RJM) chairman Chitra Bahadur K.C. alleges that the two Nepalese nationals
Krishna Thapa and Rajkumar were falsely accused by the CBI i n the case,[14] in
order to save Dr. Rajesh Talwar. The party has decided to rai se the issue in
the Nepalese parliament. The party will also approach the Nepale se government
and the national human rights commission to save the two. July 22, 2008 A bench
comprising Justice Altmas Kabir and Justice Markandey Katju of the s upreme
court of India instructs the media to be careful[15] in the context of th e
hearing of a public interest lawsuit that has raised questions on the media co
verage of the high-profile murder case. In the probe, the character of the victi
m's parents was hotly debated, especially that of Aarushi's father Rajesh Talwar
who was arrested initially as the main accused. However, no adverse observation
s were made about the compounder Krishna and the other two domestic helps Rajkum
ar and Vijay Mandal. A distinction seems to have been made according to the accu
sed persons' class and national identities. July 25, 2008 The Police custody of
the accused Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay Mandal is exte nded till August 8. The
three accused are brought to the Ghaziabad court handcuf fed and linked by a
rope. The judge objects to the inhuman treatment of the accu sed and the police
officer tenders his apologies.[16] July 31, 2008 A illed e are many Hindi
channel Aaj Tak airs a news report alleging that Vijay Mandal was dr with
leading information, prior to the narco-analysis tests. Further, ther
allegations that Mandal's confessions during the narco-analysis tests have gaps.
August 8, 2008 The Police custody of the accused Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay
Mandal is exte nded for 14 more days, as they are now considered the prime
accused. August 9, 2008 CBI director Ashwani Kumar says [17] the case is still
unsolved, as many imp ortant corroborative pieces of evidence are yet to be
found. However, he fully a ccepts that it is important that Dr. Rajesh Talwar be
exonerated or the sanctity of our family structure will be been challenged.
September 4, 2009 The Central Forensic Laboratory in Hyderabad releases a report
that Aarushi's va ginal samples were substituted with those of an unknown woman.
The correct sampl es could have helped to establish who killed the teenager, and
whether she was s
8. exually assaulted before being stabbed. The clothes that Aarushi was found in we
re soaked in blood. But the forensic lab received clean clothes. September 14,
2009 Delhi police recovers Aarushi's mobile phone in Bulandshahr. (ref) India TV
news 16/7/09 [18] Jan 5, 2010. CBI Moves Court to conduct Narco test on Talwar
Couple. May 16, 2010. A prayer meet is conducted by the Talwars in remembrance
of their dead daugh ter Aarushi who was killed on May 16, 2008. July 21, 2010.
Dr.Rajesh Talwar moves the court to have a restraint order passed against th e
unethical and misleading information being published by some print media outle
ts. CBI reportedly seeking help of foreign forensic labs to crack the two year o
ld case. December 29, 2010 CBI files closure report in Aarushi murder case. The
closure report filed in Ghaziabad court says Rajesh Talwar is the sole suspect,
and that Krishna, Raj K umar and Mandal are completely cleared. January 3, 2011
Ghaziabad court examines the validity of the closure report by CBI citing in
adequate evidence against the suspects in the double murder case.[19] As per CBI
, the prime suspect is still Rajesh Talwar however the motive of this killing is
still unknown. January 25, 2011 Arushi's father, Dr. Rajesh Talwar, is attacked
outside court with a cleaver by a youth called Utsav Sharma in protest against
CBI's decision to recall the case and that Utsav was upset that Talwar was not
convicted. Utsav had also in p rotest attacked former police chief S.P.S.
Rathore of the Ruchika Girhotra case in February 2010 .[20] January 30, 2011
People from all walks of life get together to protest at Jantar Mantar, Delh i
to press for Justice in the case. February 9, 2011 The special CBI court on
Wednesday made Rajesh Talwar and Nupur Talwar accus ed in the Aarushi murder
case. The Court has also issued summons against Aarushi 's parents, accusing
them of murder and criminal conspiracy under IPC 302 and 34 . The next date for
hearing has been fixed as February 28. March 8, 2011
9. The mother of Dr. Talwar's attorney is found murdered in her home. March 18,
2011 Supreme Court stays High Court order against the Talwars. March 21, 2011
The Talwars surrender passports to the Ghaziabad District Court. March 25, 2011
Hemraj's widow files application in Ghaziabad Court claiming Talwars killed him
and Aarushi. April 8, 2011 SC pulls up Talwars for not submitting their original
plea. April 11, 2011 Talwars due in court April 15, 2011. April 15, 2011 Supreme
Court seeks CBI's response in Aarushi Talwar case. April 22, 2011 CBI charges
Rajesh Talwar with forgery and concealing facts. April 23, 2011 CBI says "Only
parents could have killed Aarushi". April 27, 2011 Aarushi's hearing in CBI
court on July 20. June 15, 2011 Mayawati suspends police officer citing the
unsolved three-year-old Aarushi Talwar murder case. Jan 6, 2012 SC dismisses
Talwars' plea, says trial will resume Jan 9, 2012 Rajesh Talwar to remain on
bail, asked to appear before trial court on Feb 4 March 2, 2012 Supreme Court
refuses to shift Aarushi murder trial to Delhi from a Ghaziaba d court[21].
---------Arushi murder case: The untold story By Mihir Srivastava | India Today
Mon 24 Jan, 2011
10. 25 Email Print Latest Slideshows Pictures of the week 12th - 18th March 14
photos - Thu 15 Mar, 2012 Jenson Button tastes victory at the Australian F1 19
photos - 7 hours ago An armless photographer at work 15 photos - 7 hours ago A
disturbing sexual angle has emerged in the murder of Aarushi Talwar, 14. Cruci
al facts left out from her post-mortem report suggest that her private parts wer
e "extraordinarily dilated". But there were no signs of rape. These facts, estab
lished by the CBI after they questioned the doctor who performed the post-mortem
, give a new twist to the case."The vaginal orifice of the deceased was unduly l
arge and mouth of cervix was visible," says the CBI's closure report. Her
private parts were cleaned. This caused water stains on the bedsheet. There was
no semen on the bedsheet. But the pyjamas Aarushi wore did not have water st
ains on it. This shows that the crime scene was dressed up. The CBI believes Aar
ushi may have been killed elsewhere and the body placed on her bed. parallel
investigation by Headlines Today reveals that the chairperson of the N ational
Commission on Women (NCW) Girija Vyas allegedly scuttled a probe into th e
Aarushi's murder by a two-member NCW committee. Soon after the killing, this c
ommittee visited the Talwar house in Jalvayu Vihar, Noida, to investigate. Forme
r NCW member Nirmala Venkatesh alleges that as soon as they stepped into Hemraj'
s room, she got five calls from Vyas, asking her to stop the probe. Vyas initial
ly denied there was an inquiry and that a committee was formed. She later admitt
ed that there was, but said the report was not made public because the CBI was a
bout to investigate. These sensational revelations fly in the face of the CBI's
closure report. Last month, the CBI sought the special court's permission to
close the double murder case because it could not solve it. Though the CBI has
been unable to nail the accused, its investigations have comp letely ruled out
the possibility of outsiders having killed Aarushi and domestic help Hemraj
Banjade. Circumstantial evidence points to the complicity of those inside. The
crime scene was methodically "dressed up"or cleansed of all evidence which could
implicate the Talwars. An expert from the forensic science laborato ry,
Gandhinagar, who inspected the crime scene, says that the crime had been com
mitted by someone "very close to Aarushi". Nobody except the killer or killers,
of course, knows what exactly happened in t he Talwar residence during the six
crucial hours between 12 midnight and 6 a.m. on May 16, 2008, when both Hemraj
and Aarushi were brutally murdered within an h our. Aarushi was bludgeoned on
her forehead and her throat slit with a small, sh arp object. So was Hemraj. A
reconstruction of the crime, however, increasingly points to an inside hand. T
he assailants had gained easy access to the flat because there were no signs of
forced entry. They killed Aarushi and Hemraj, moved their bodies around the flat
and even stayed behind for drinks. The parents of Aarushi, Nupur and Rajesh Tal
war, seem to have slept through an incredible amount of activity in their small
flat. They claimed their bedroom door was shut and the air-conditioner turned on
.
11. The murderer dragged Hemraj's body to the terrace using a sheet. The body was cu
rsorily covered with a cooler lid and a bedsheet on a clothesline. The murderers
then locked the terrace door and re-entered the house. They even seemed to know
where the Talwars' mini-bar was-behind a wooden panel near the dining table. Th
ey drank from a bottle of whiskey and left it on the dining table. The bottle ha
d bloodstains of both victims. At around 3.43 a.m., the Internet router in
Aarushi's room was switched off. Tha t means that somebody entered her room
nearly three hours after her murder. Whoe ver it was, failed to raise the alarm
or even spot her body. At 6.01 a.m., housemaid Bharti arrived. She rang the
doorbell four times. Normal ly, Hemraj, the domestic help, would open the door,
but this time Nupur opened i t. Rajesh was also awake. This was unusual because
the couple were late risers. The iron grill door at the entrance was locked from
outside, so Nupur threw the keys from the balcony to Bharti. Three minutes
later, when Bharti entered, she f ound the couple sobbing. "Dekho Hemraj ne kya
kar diya (look what Hemraj has don e)". Aarushi was found on the bed in a pool
of blood. Bharti rushed out to infor m the neighbours. Hemraj's room had an
independent entry and opened into the fla t from inside. Another strange
incident happened around this time. Nupur called Hemraj's cellph one from her
landline at 6.01 a.m. The call was immediately disconnected. This m eans the
dead servant's phone was attended by someone near the crime scene. Inex
plicably, both Hemraj's and Aarushi's cellphones disappeared. Hemraj's phone was
never found but Aarushi's Nokia N72 was found on a dirt track by a housemaid ne
ar Noida's Sadarpur area a fortnight later. Its memory was wiped clean. The cell
phone was a crucial piece of evidence. Aarushi would usually be up chatting with
her friends until well past midnight. On the night of May 15, her cellphone was
inactive after 9.10 p.m. At around mid night, her friend Anmol called on the
Talwar landline because he could not get t hrough her cellphone. There was no
response. Anmol then sent an SMS to her cellp hone at around 12.30. This SMS was
not received by Aarushi's phone. What were the Talwars doing before the murders?
According to the CBI closure rep ort, after reaching home at 9.30 p.m., they
dined with Aarushi, then took a few pictures on a new digital camera they bought
for Aarushi as a birthday gift and retired by around 11 p.m. Around this time,
Nupur came to Aarushi's room to swit ch on the Internet router. Aarushi was
reading a book. The parents controlled access to Aarushi's room by locking it;
the keys to her r oom would usually lie by Nupur's bedside. Nupur told the
police that she was not sure whether she locked Aarushi's door the last time she
went to her room. Raje sh received a call from the US on his landline at this
time. This indicated that his ringer was not silent. He surfed the Internet,
sent some emails, surveyed s tock market sites and some dentistry sites. He sent
his last email at 11.57 p.m. before presumably going to sleep. The following
morning, the bunch of keys to the flat and terrace were found on t he bed in
Hemraj's room by Nupur. Aarushi's bedroom keys were found in the livin g room.
It was the only set of house keys, so it is still not clear how the Talw ars
were locked from the outside. The police arrived an hour later, at 7.15 a.m.
They were met by a crowd inside. There were 15 people in the living room and fi
ve-six people in the Talwars' bedroom. Only Aarushi's room was empty. The crime
scene was completely trampled upon. The "Hemraj killed Aarushi" theory was
gospel for a full day. Rajesh repeatedly told the police officers to pursue
Hemraj and not to waste time in his flat. He dissuaded them from opening the
locked terrace door and even offered the policem
12. en Rs 25,000 to rush to Hemraj's village in Nepal. The CBI and police mention
they saw the concerted efforts by the Talwars to put the blame on Hemraj as a
diversionary tactic. Meanwhile, doctors visiting the Ta lwars saw bloodstains on
the handle of the locked terrace door. They also saw wi ped bloody footmarks and
blood stains on the upper staircase. Rajesh was asked f or the keys but he went
inside his residence after seeing the blood-stained door handle. The police
failed to open the door for a full day. Aarushi's body was taken for a post-
mortem in Noida at about 9 a.m. and her last rites performed late in the
evening. The Talwars' domestic staff showed undue h aste in thoroughly cleaning
up floors and walls of Aarushi's room with soap and water. Aarushi's blood-
stained mattress was dumped on the terrace belonging to n eighbour Puneet
Tandon. Meanwhile, when the post-mortem report was being written between 3 p.m.
and 6 p. m. on May 16, a telephonic loop was created between Rajesh's elder
brother Dines h Talwar, family friend Dr Sushil Chaudhury, K.K. Gautam, a
retired deputy super intendent of police, and an unidentified number. Dinesh
would call Chaudhury who would call Gautam. The latter would dial an
unidentified number. This sequence was then reversed. This loop was created six
times that evening. The CBI claims that it was done to delete references to
"rape" in Aarushi's post-mortem report. Some 28 fingerprint samples were lifted
from the scene of crime and handed over to the CBI on May 20. This was 10 days
before the case was formally handed over to the CBI. Most of the fingerprints,
especially those on the whiskey bottle, we re smudged. Between 9 a.m. and 10
a.m. on May 17, this loop was repeated twice. Soon after t hese calls were made,
Gautam arrived at the Talwar house and asked for the terra ce door to be opened
after examining the site of crime. Before calling the local police to open the
door, he called a top Uttar Pradesh police officer and then his journalist
friends so that the door is opened in media glare. Gautam told th em that there
was likely to be an interesting discovery. When the local police arrived at the
Talwar residence, the media was already the re. The keys to the terrace were
still missing, so the lock was broken to enter the terrace. Hemraj's body was
discovered. However, vital clues were missing-the blood-soaked clothes of the
perpetrators, the cloth used to clean the floor and the sheet on which Hemraj's
body was dragged. Was there a definite ploy to hide Hemraj's body? And why leave
it on the terrace ? CBI sleuths believe the body was hidden on the roof by the
murderer for dispos al later. But the media glare made it virtually impossible
to spirit away the bo dy, hence they changed the plan. It may prove as difficult
for the CBI to walk a way from one of India's most sensational whodunits.
------Posted by advocatemmmohan · January 10, 2012 Aarushi murder case =The
powers of Magistrate to take cognizance even the report of investigating officer
found no offence as per his opinion= The position is, the refore, now well
settled that upon receipt of a police report under Section 173( 2) a Magistrate
is entitled to take cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1 )(b) of the
Code even if the police report is to the effect that no case is made out against
-------Relief for Talwars, Rajesh s bail extended to April 11 Nupur Talwar skips
hearing, directed to appear within 30 days; her bail plea to be disposed of
expeditiously
13. Arpit Parashar Ghaziabad A file photo of Rajesh and Nupur Talwar at the special
CBI court in Ghaziabad ALSO READ Court tells CBI to charge Talwars in Aarushi-
Hemraj double murder case Perfect murder? Or a perfectly botched probe? THE
HOUSE WE blew down The special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court in
Ghaziabad on Wednesda y 14 March extended the bail of Rajesh Talwar in
connection with the Aarushi Tal war-Hemraj double murder case. The court also
ordered his wife Nupur Talwar to a ppear before it within 30 days. Rajesh Talwar
attended the hearing accompanied b y his brother Dinesh but Nupur was not
present during the hearing. The CBI strongly opposed the plea by the couple for
an anticipatory bail in the case and said that there were hidden motives behind
the plea, and that it might hav e been filed since Section 438 of the Criminal
Procedure Code (CrPC), that deals with procedures related to anticipatory bail,
is not applicable in Uttar Pradesh (UP). The CBI counsel also said that since
the bail granted to the couple by th e Supreme Court (SC) was conditional,
Rajesh Talwar should face arrest and then apply for fresh bail in the court; the
agency asked for judicial custody of Nupu r Talwar. However, the Special
Judicial Magistrate Preeti Singh was not convince d and extended the bail
granted to Rajesh by the SC till 11 April and also direc ted Nupur Talwar to
appear before it within 30 days. The next hearing in the mat ter will be held on
11 April. Nupur Talwar had on Tuesday approached the Allahabad High Court
through her coun sel VP Srivastava pleading that her bail be heard
simultaneously when she appear s before the trial court. However, Justice BK
Narayana, who heard the case, said that that the only relief that can be granted
at this stage would be to ask the lower court to hear the bail plea
expeditiously and had issued the same directi ons to the Ghaziabad court. The
application had been filed under section 482 of the CrPC, which gives exclusive
powers to the HC to make decisions on matters of justice. Nupur and Rajesh are
both accused murder (under IPC section 302), crim inal conspiracy (IPC 120B) and
destruction of evidence (IPC section 201). The couple had last month approached
the SC demanding that the court proceedings be shifted to Delhi citing security
risks in Ghaziabad. Rajesh Talwar had been attacked outside the Ghaziabad court
on 25 January, 2011. The counsel for Talwar s had also said in the SC that the
trial court judge had been hearing the matter in a pre-determined manner. But on
2 March, a Bench led by Justice BS Chauhan d ismissed the petitions filed by the
Talwars and said that Talwars conduct showed i mpertinence magnified manifold
for the rule of law. However, despite expressing security concerns in the SC,
the Talwars had not app roached the Ghaziabad police for security since the
attack on Rajesh last year. After the attack, the trial court judge had issued
orders under Section 327 of t he CrPC and allowed only litigants and advocates
related to the case inside the courtroom. However, as per the SC order directing
the UP administration to provi de adequate security to the Talwars, Ghaziabad
police deployed a unit of the Pro vincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) outside the
court, said city police chief Raghu bir Lal. The media was not allowed into the
court room and nearly 35 police offi cers, all armed, were deployed outside. The
CBI court had summoned the dentist couple as accused in the case after the p
robe agency filed its closure report and directed the CBI to file a case against
them for murder, criminal conspiracy and destruction of evidence since there wa
14. s
sufficient evidence in its closure report.
The couple had moved the HC and later the SC to get the trial court orders quash
ed, but had not got any relief. The SC Bench of Justices AK Ganguly and JS Kheha
r had, on 6 January, ruled that the dentist couple would face trial for the murd
ers and said that there was nothing wrong in the Ghaziabad trial court Judge s
ord er taking cognisance and putting the couple on trial as he had passed the
order after applying his mind . Aarushi (14), the only daughter of the Talwars,
was found dead with her throat s lit at the family s L-32 Jalvayu Vihar
residence in Noida on the morning of 16 May , 2008, and the body of Hemraj,
their domestic help, was found on the terrace th e next day. ------HC orders
early disposal of Dr Nupur's bail plea Allahabad | Tuesday, Mar 13 2012 IST
Allahabad High Court today directed a CBI court to dispose the bail plea of Dr N
upur Talwar, an accused in the Aarushi murder case, at the earliest. A division
bench comprising Justice V K Narayan has passed this order, while hearing the pe
tition of Dr Talwar filed under section 482 of the IPC. Dr Nupur Talwar, the mot
her of Aarushi, is facing a case against her under section 302 and 301 of the IP
C in special CBI court. Her husbnd Rajesh Talwar is also co-accused into the kil
ling of their daughter. On May 17, 2008, Aarushi's body was recovered from her h
ouse. Few days later, their domestic help Hemraj was also found murdered at the
terrace. The CBI court had in a closure report on December 21, 2010 suspected th
e involvement of the girl's parents into the killing. UNI XC-JAS SB VC1919 NNNN
------Head Master, Lawrence School Lovedale Vs. Jayanthi Raghu & Anr. IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Dalveer Bhandari and Dipak
Misra, JJ. March 16, 2012 CIVIL APPEAL No. 2012 (Arising out of SLP (c) No.
21400 of 2008) Head Note:Rules of Lawrence School, Lovedale (Nilgiris) - Rule
4.9 - Regard being had to the tenor of the Rules, the words if confirmed , read
in proper context, confer a status on the appointee which consequently entitles
him to continue on the pos t till the age of 55 years, unless he is otherwise
removed from service as per t he Rules. J U D G M E N T Dipak Misra, J Leave
granted. 2. Questioning the legal acceptability of the Judgment and Order dated
26.03.200 8 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No. 4157 of
2004 wher eby the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 15963
of 1997 t o the effect that the order of termination in respect of the first
respondent, a teacher, being stigmatic in nature and having been passed without
an enquiry wa rranted quashment was dislodged by the Division Bench on the
foundation that the order of termination did not cast any stigma, but concurred
with the ultimate c onclusion on the base that she was a confirmed employee and
hence, holding of di sciplinary enquiry before passing an order of termination
was imperative, the pr esent appeal by special leave has been preferred under
Article 136 of the Consti tution of India. 3. The factual matrix lies in a
narrow compass. The first respondent herein was appointed on the post of a
Mistress with effect from 01.09.1993. It was stipulat ed in the letter of
appointment that she would be on probation for a period of t
15. wo years which may be extended for another one year, if necessary. In November 1
995, while she was working as a Mistress in the appellant s school, as alleged,
sh e had received some amount from one Nathan. A meeting was convened on
09.09.1997 and in the proceeding, certain facts were recorded which need not be
adverted t o inasmuch as the said allegations though treated stigmatic by the
learned Singl e Judge, yet the Division Bench, on a studied scrutiny of the
factual scenario, has opined in categorical terms that the same do not cast any
stigma. The said conclusion has gone unassailed as no appeal has been preferred
by the first res pondent. 4. To proceed with the narration, after the proceeding
was recorded on 18.06.199 7, an order of termination was passed against the
first respondent. As has been stated earlier, the order of termination was
assailed before the Writ Court and the learned Single Judge axed the order on
the ground that the same was stigmati c in nature. The order passed by the
learned Single Judge was challenged in Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent by the present appellant and at th at juncture, a contention was
canvassed by the first respondent that by virtue o f the language employed in
Rule 4.9 of the Rules of Lawrence School, Lovedale (N ilgiris) (for short, the
Rules ), she had earned the status of a confirmed employee having satisfactorily
completed the period of probation and, therefore, her ser vices could not have
been dispensed with without holding an enquiry. In essence, the proponement was
that she was deemed to have been a confirmed employee of th e school and hence,
it was obligatory on the part of the employer to hold an enq uiry before putting
an end to her services. 5. The Division Bench interpreted the Rule and placed
reliance on a three-Judge Bench Decision of this Court in The High Court of
Madhya Pradesh through Registr ar and Others v. Satya Narayan Jhaver, (2001) 7
SCC 161 : AIR 2001 SC 3234 and c ame to hold as follows:In terms of Rule 4.9 of
the Rules, the maximum period of probation would be o nly three years and the
rule does not provide any further extension of probation . If that be so, the
Headmaster of the school would be entitled to pass orders a s to the
confirmation before the expiry of the maximum period of three years i.e .,
1.9.1996. Factually no such order was passed in this case and the teacher was
allowed to serve beyond the period of 1.9.1996 till the order of termination da
ted 18.6.1997 was passed. In the absence of any provision for extension beyond a
period of three years, in law, as stated by the Supreme Court, the services of
the teacher would be treated as confirmed after 1.9.1996. Mr. K. R. Vijayakumar,
learned counsel for the school has submitted that the said rule 4.9 contemplate
s that only if confirmed the probation would come to an end. The said submission
i s based on the rule that the appointee, if confirmed, shall continue to hold
off ice till the age of 55 years. In our opinion, the said rule relates to the
upper age limit for the entire service, i.e., in the event of a probationer is
confir med, he would be entitled to continue till the age of 55 years. The said
rule do es not in any way empowers the Headmaster or the Chairman, as the case
may be, t o extend the period of probation beyond the maximum period of three
years. 6. Assailing the legal substantiality of the order, Mr. K.V. Viswanathan,
learne d senior counsel, has submitted that the Division Bench has grossly erred
by com ing to the conclusion that after the expiry of the probation period, the
first r espondent became a confirmed employee. It is his further submission that
if the language employed in Rule 4.9 of the Rules, especially the words if
confirmed , are appreciated in proper perspective, there can be no trace of
doubt that an affir mative act was required to be done by the employer without
which the employee co uld not be treated to be a confirmed one. The learned
senior counsel would furth er contend that the High Court has clearly flawed in
its interpretation of the R ule by connecting the factum of confirmation with
the fixation of upper age limi t for superannuation. It is also urged by him
that the Division Bench has clearl y faulted in its appreciation of the law laid
down in Satya Narayan Jhaver (supr a) inasmuch as the case of the first
respondent squarely falls in the category w here a specific act on the part of
the employer is an imperative requisite.
16. 7. Combating the aforesaid submissions, Ms. Shweta Basti, learned counsel appear
ing for the first respondent, submitted that the order passed by the High Court
is absolutely impeccable since on a careful scanning of the Rule, it is discerni
ble that it does not confer any power on the employer to extend the period of pr
obation beyond the maximum period as stipulated in the Rule and, therefore, the
principle of deemed confirmation gets attracted. It is proponed by her that the
emphasis placed on the term if confirmed by the appellant is totally
misconcieved and unwarranted because its placement in the Rule luminously
projects that it ha s an insegregable nexus with the age of retirement and it
has no postulate which would destroy the concept of deemed confirmation. It has
been further put forth that the Rule neither lays down any postulate that the
employee shall pass any test nor does it stipulate any condition precedent for
the purpose of confirmati on. Lastly, it is contended that a liberal
interpretation is necessary regard be ing had to the uncertainties that is met
with by a probationer after the expiry of the probation period and unless the
beneficent facet is taken note of, the ca price of the employer would prevail
and the service career of an employee would be fossilized. 8. To appreciate the
rivalised submissions raised at the Bar, we have carefully perused the letter of
appointment and on a plain reading of the same, it is appa rent that the first
respondent was appointed as a Mistress in the School on prob ation for a period
of two years with a stipulation that it may be extended by an other year. There
is nothing in the terms of the letter of appointment from whic h it can be
construed that after the expiry of the period of probation, she woul d be
treated as a deemed confirmed employee. In this factual backdrop, the inter
pretation to be placed on Rule 4.9 of the Rules assumes immense signification. T
he said Rule reads as follows:4.9 All appointments to the staff shall ordinarily
be made on probation for a period of one year which may at the discretion of the
Headmaster or the Chairma n in the case of members of the staff appointed by the
Board be extended up to t wo years. The appointee, if confirmed, shall continue
to hold office till the ag e of 55 years, except as otherwise provided in these
Rules. Every appointment sh all be subject to the conditions that the appointee
is certified as medically fi t for service by a Medical Officer nominated by the
Board or by the Resident Med ical Officer of the School. 9. Keeping in abeyance
the interpretation to be placed on the Rule for a while, it is obligatory to
state that there is no dispute at the Bar that the first res pondent had
completed the period of probation of three years. Thus, the fulcrum of the
controversy is whether the appellant-school was justified under the Rules
treating the respondent-teacher as a probationer and not treating her as a deem
ed confirmed employee. We have reproduced the necessary paragraph from the decis
ion of the High Court and highlighted how the Division Bench has analysed and in
terpreted the Rule in question. The bedrock of the analysis, as is perceivable,
is the sentence in Rule 4.9 the appointee, if confirmed, shall continue to hold
o ffice till the age of 55 years fundamentally relates to the fixation of the
upper age limit for the entire service. It has been held that it deals with the
entit lement of an employee to continue till the age of 55 years. 10. Before we
proceed to appreciate whether the interpretation placed on the Rul e is correct
or not, it is apposite to refer to certain authorities in the field . In
Sukhbans Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1711 the Constitution Bench has
opined that a probationer cannot, after the expiry of the probationary perio d,
automatically acquire the status of a permanent member of the service, unless of
course, the rules under which he is appointed expressly provide for such a r
esult. 11. In G.S. Ramaswamy and Ors. v. Inspector-General of Police, Mysore,
AIR 1966 SC 175 another Constitution Bench, while dealing with the language
employed und er Rule 486 of the Hyderabad District Police Manual, referred to
the decision in Sukhbans Singh (supra) and opined as follows:
17. It has been held in that case that a probationer cannot after the expiry of t he
probationary period automatically acquire the status of a permanent member of a
service, unless of course the rules under which he is appointed expressly pro
vide for such a result. Therefore even though a probationer may have continued t
o act in the post to which he is on probation for more than the initial period o
f probation, he cannot become a permanent servant merely because of efflux of ti
me, unless the Rules of service which govern him specifically lay down that the
probationer will; be automatically confirmed after the initial period of probati
on is over. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners before us that the part
of r. 486 (which we have set out above) expressly provides for automatic confir
mation after the period of probation is over. We are of opinion that there is no
force in this contention. It is true that the words used in the sentence set ou
t above are not that promoted officers will be enable or qualified for promotion
at the end of their probationary period which are the words to be often found i
n the rules in such eases; even so, though this part of r. 486 says that "promot
ed officers will be confirmed at the end of their probationary period", it is qu
alified by the words "if they have given satisfaction". Clearly therefore the ru
le does not contemplate automatic confirmation after the probationary period of
two years, for a promoted officer can only be confirmed under this rule if he ha
s given satisfaction. 12. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Akbar Ali Khan, AIR 1966
SC 1842 another Consti tution Bench ruled that if the order of appointment
itself states that at the en d of the period of probation, in the absence of any
order to the contrary, the a ppointee will acquire a substantive right to the
post even without an order of c onfirmation. In all other cases, in the absence
of such an order or in the absen ce of such a service rule, an express order of
confirmation is necessary to give him such a right. Where after the period of
probation, an appointee is allowed to continue in the post without an order of
confirmation, the only possible view to take is that by implication, the period
of probation has been extended, and it is not a correct proposition to state
that an appointee should be deemed to b e confirmed from the mere fact that he
is allowed to continue after the end of t he period of probation. 13. In State
of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1210 the Constitution Bench, after
scanning the anatomy of the Rules in question, addressed itself to the pr ecise
effect of Rule 6 of the Punjab Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class
III Rules, 1961. The said Rule stipulated that the total period of probati on -
including extensions, if any, shall not exceed three years. This Court refe rred
to the earlier view which had consistently stated that when a first appoint ment
or promotion is made on probation for a specific period and the employee is
allowed to continue in the post after the expiry of the period without any spec
ific order of confirmation, he should be deemed to continue in his post as a pro
bationer only in the absence of any indication to the contrary in the original o
rder of appointment or promotion or the service rules. Under these circumstances
, an express order of confirmation is imperative to give the employee a substant
ive right to the post and from the mere fact that he is allowed to continue in t
he post after the expiry of the specified period of probation, it is difficult t
o hold that he should be deemed to have been confirmed. When the service rules f
ixed a certain period of time beyond which the probationary period cannot be ext
ended and an employee appointed or promoted to a post on probation is allowed to
continue in that post after completion of the maximum period of probation witho
ut an express order of confirmation, he cannot be deemed to continue in that pos
t as a probationer by implication. It is so as such an implication is specifical
ly - negatived by the service rule forbidding extension of the probationary peri
od beyond the maximum period fixed by it. 14. In Samsher Singh v. State of
Punjab and another, (1974) 2 SCC 831 the sevenJudge Bench was dealing with the
termination of services of the probationers und er Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil
Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952 and R ule 7(3) of the Punjab Civil
Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951. In the said case, the law laid down by
the Constitution Bench in the case of Dharam Singh (
18. supra) was approved but it was distinguished because of the language of the rele
vant rule, especially explanation to Rule 7(1), which provided that every subord
inate Judge in the first instance be appointed on probation for two years and th
e said period may be extended from time to time either expressly or impliedly so
that the total period of probation including extension does not exceed three ye
ars. The explanation to the said Rule stipulated that the period of probation sh
all be deemed to have been extended if a subordinate Judge is not confirmed on t
he expiry of the period of probation. Be it noted, reliance was placed on the de
cision in Dharam Singh (supra). The larger Bench discussed the principle laid do
wn in Dharam Singh s case and proceeded to state as follows:In Dharam Singh s
case (supra) the relevant rule stated that the probation in t he first instance
is for one year with the proviso that the total period of prob ation including
extension shall not exceed three years. In Dharam Singh s case he was allowed to
continue without an order of confirmation and therefore the only possible view
in the absence of anything to the contrary in the Service Rules wa s that by
necessary implication he must be regarded as having been confirmed. After so
stating, the Bench referred to Rule 7(1) and came to hold as
follows:..................the explanation to rule 7(1) shows that the period of
proba tion shall be deemed to have been extended impliedly if a Subordinate
Judge is n ot confirmed on the expiry of this period of probation. This implied
extension w here a Subordinate Judge is not confirmed on the expiry of the
period of probati on is not found in Dharam Singh's case (supra). This
explanation in the present case does not mean that the implied extension of the
probationary period is only between two and three years. The explanation on the
contrary means that the pro vision regarding the maximum period of probation for
three years is directory an d not mandatory unlike in Dharam Singh's case
(supra) and that a probationer is not in fact confirmed till an order of
confirmation is made. (Emphasis supplied) 15. In Om Prakash Maurya v. U.P. Co-
operative Sugar Factories Federation, Luckno w and others, AIR 1986 SC 1844 a
two-Judge Bench was dealing with the case of co nfirmation under the U.P.
Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1 975. After referring to
Regulations 17 and 18, it was held that as the proviso t o Regulation 17
restricts the power of the appointing authority in extending the period of
probation beyond the period of one year and Regulation 18 provides fo r
confirmation of an employee on the satisfactory completion of the probationary
period, it could safely be held that the necessary result of the continuation o
f an employee beyond two years of probationary period is that he would be confir
med by implication. 16. In Municipal Corporation, Raipur v. Ashok Kumar Misra,
AIR 1991 SC 1402 whil e dealing with Rule 14 of the Madhya Pradesh Government
Servants General Conditio ns of Service Rules, 1961, after referring to earlier
pronouncements, it has bee n held that if the rules do not empower the
appointing authority to extend the p robation beyond the prescribed period, or
where the rules are absent about confi rmation or passing of the prescribed test
for confirmation it is an indication o f the satisfactory completion of
probation. 17. It is apt to note here that the learned counsel for both the
sides have heav ily relied on the decision in High Court of Madhya Pradesh thru.
Registrar and o thers v. Satya Narayan Jhavar, (2001) 7 SCC 161 : AIR 2001 SC
3234. In the said case, the three-Judge Bench was considering the effect and
impact of Rule 24 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Classification,
Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1955. It may be mentioned that
the decision rendered in Daya ram Dayal v. State of M.P., AIR 1997 SC 3269 which
was also a case under Rule 24 of the said Rules, was referred to the larger
Bench. In Dayaram Dayal (supra), it had been held that if no order for
confirmation was passed within the maximum period of probation, the probationer
judicial officer could be deemed to have b
19. een confirmed after expiry of four years period of probation. After referring to
the decisions in Dharam Singh (supra), Sukhbans Singh (supra) and Shamsher Sing
h (supra) and other authorities, the three Judge Bench expressed thus:11. The
question of deemed confirmation in service Jurisprudence, which is de pendent
upon language of the relevant service rules, has been subject matter of
consideration before this Court times without number in various decisions and th
ere are three lines of cases on this point. One line of cases is where in the se
rvice rules or the letter of appointment a period of probation is specified and
power to extend the same is also conferred upon the authority without prescribin
g any maximum period of probation and if the officer is continued beyond the pre
scribed or extended period, he cannot be deemed to be confirmed. In such cases t
here is no bar against termination at any point of time after expiry of the peri
od of probation. Other line of cases is that where while there is a provision in
the rules for initial probation and extension thereof, a maximum period for suc
h extension is also provided beyond which it is not permissible to extend probat
ion. The inference in such cases is that officer concerned is deemed to have bee
n confirmed upon expiry of the maximum period of probation in case before its ex
piry order of termination has not been passed. The last line of cases is where t
hough under the rules maximum period of probation is prescribed, but the same re
quire a specific act on the part of the employer by issuing an order of confirma
tion and of passing a test for the purposes of confirmation. In such cases, even
if the maximum period of probation has expired and neither any order of confirm
ation has been passed nor the person concerned has passed the requisite test, he
cannot be deemed to have been confirmed merely because the said period has expi
red. (underlining is ours) After so stating, it was further clarified as
follows:38. Ordinarily a deemed confirmation of a probationer arises when the
letter of appointment so stipulates or the Rules governing service condition so
indicat e. In the absence of such term in the letter of appointment or in the
relevant R ules, it can be inferred on the basis of the relevant Rules by
implication, as w as the case in Dharam Singh (supra). But it cannot be said
that merely because a maximum period of probation has been provided in Service
Rules, continuance of the probationer thereafter would ipso facto must be held
to be a deemed confirma tion which would certainly run contrary to Seven Judge
Bench Judgment of this Co urt in the case of Shamsher Singh (supra) and
Constitution Bench decisions in th e cases of Sukhbans Singh (supra), G.S.
Ramaswamy (supra) and Akbar Ali Khan (su pra). 18. Regard being had to the
aforesaid principles, the present Rule has to be sca nned and interpreted. The
submission of Mr. Viswanathan, learned senior counsel for the appellant, is that
the case at hand comes within the third category of c ases as enumerated in
para-11 of Satya Narayan Jhaver (supra). That apart, it is urged, the concept of
deemed confirmation, ipso facto, would not get attracted as there is neither any
restriction nor any prohibition in extending the period of probation. On the
contrary, the words if confirmed require further action to be taken by the
employer in the matter of confirmation. 19. On a perusal of Rule 4.9 of the
Rules, it is absolutely plain that there is no prohibition as was the rule
position in Dharam Singh (supra). Similarly, in O m Prakash Maurya (supra),
there was a restriction under the Regulations to exten d the period of
probation. That apart, in the rules under consideration, the sai d cases did not
stipulate that something else was required to be done by the emp loyer and,
therefore, it was held that the concept of deemed confirmation got at tracted.
20. Having so observed, we are only required to analyse what the words if
confirm ed in their contextual use would convey. The Division Bench of the High
Court has
20. associated the said words with the entitlement of the age of superannuation. In
our considered opinion, the interpretation placed by the High Court is unaccept
able. The words have to be understood in the context they are used. Rule 4.9 has
to be read as a whole to understand the purport and what the Rule conveys and m
eans. In Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Lt
d. and others, (1987) 1 SCC 424 it has been held as follows:Interpretation must
depend on the text and the context. They are the bases of interpretation. One
may well say if the text is the texture, context is what g ives the colour.
Neither can be ignored. Both are important. The interpretation is best which
makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute i s best
interpreted when we know why it was enacted. With this knowledge, the sta tute
must be read, first as a whole and then section by section, clause by claus e,
phrase by phrase and word by word. If a statute is looked at, in the context of
its enactment, with the glasses of the statute-maker, provided by such contex t,
its scheme, the sections, clauses, phrases and words may take colour and appe ar
different than when the statute is looked at without the glasses provided by the
context. With these glasses we must look at the Act as a whole and discover what
each section, each clause, each phrase and each word is meant and designed to
say as to fit into the scheme of the entire Act. No part of a statute and no
word of a statute can be construed in isolation. Statutes have to be construed s
o that every word has a place and everything is in its place. Keeping the said
principle in view, we are required to appreciate what precisely the words if
confirmed contextually convey. Regard being had to the tenor of the Rules, the
words if confirmed , read in proper context, confer a status on the appo intee
which consequently entitles him to continue on the post till the age of 55
years, unless he is otherwise removed from service as per the Rules. 21. It is
worth noting that the use of the word if has its own significance. In th is
regard, we may usefully refer to the decision in S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar T
iwari and others, (1970) 1 SCC 653. In the said case, a three-Judge Bench was in
terpreting the words if he thinks fit as provided under Section 159 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1898. It related to the exercise of power by the
Magistrate . In that context, the Bench observed thus:The use of this expression
makes it clear that Section 159 is primarily meant to give to the Magistrate the
power of directing an investigation in cases wher e the police decide not to
investigate the case under the proviso to Section 157 (1), and it is in those
cases that, if he thinks fit, he can choose the second a lternative. If the
expression if he thinks fit had not been used, it might have be en argued that
this section was intended to give in wide terms the power to the Magistrate to
adopt any of the two courses of either directing an investigation, or of
proceeding himself or deputing any Magistrate subordinate to him to proce ed to
hold a preliminary enquiry as the circumstances of the case may require. W
ithout the use of the expression if he thinks fit , the second alternative could
ha ve been held to be independent of the first; but the use of this expression,
in our opinion, makes it plain that the power conferred by the second clause of
thi s section is only an alternative to the power given by the first clause and
can, therefore, be exercised only in those cases in which the first clause is
applic able. 22. In State of Tamil Nadu v. Kodaikanal Motor Union (P) Ltd.,
(1986) 3 SCC 91 t he Court, while interpreting the words if the offence had not
been committed as us ed in Section 10-A(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956,
expressed the view as follows:In our opinion the use of the expression if
simpliciter, was meant to indicate a condition, the condition being that at the
time of assessing the penalty, that situation should be visualised wherein there
was no scope of committing any off ence. Such a situation could arise only if
the tax liability fell under sub-sect
21. ion (2) of Section 8 of the Act. 23. Bearing in mind the aforesaid conceptual
meaning, when the language employed under Rule 4.9 is scrutinised, it can safely
be concluded that the entitlement to continue till the age of superannuation,
i.e., 55 years, is not absolute. The power and right to remove is not
obliterated. The status of confirmation has to be earned and conferred. Had the
rule making authority intended that there woul d be automatic confirmation, Rule
4.9 would have been couched in a different lan guage. That being not so, the
wider interpretation cannot be placed on the Rule to infer that the probationer
gets the status of a deemed confirmed employee aft er expiry of three years of
probationary period as that would defeat the basic p urpose and intent of the
Rule which clearly postulates if confirmed . A confirmatio n, as is demonstrable
from the language employed in the Rule, does not occur wit h efflux of time. As
it is hedged by a condition, an affirmative or positive act is the requisite by
the employer. In our considered opinion, an order of confir mation is required
to be passed. The Division Bench has clearly flawed by associ ating the words if
confirmed with the entitlement of the age of superannuation wit hout
appreciating that the use of the said words as a fundamental qualifier nega
tives deemed confirmation. Thus, the irresistible conclusion is that the present
case would squarely fall in the last line of cases as has been enumerated in pa
ragraph 11 of Satya Narayan Jhaver (supra) and, therefore, the principle of deem
ed confirmation is not attracted. 24. In the result, the appeal is allowed and
the judgment and order passed by th e High Court are set aside to the extent
that the first respondent had acquired the status of confirmed employee and,
therefore, holding of enquiry is imperativ e. As far as the conclusion recorded
by the Division Bench that no stigma was ca st on the respondent is concerned,
the same having gone - unchallenged, the orde r in that regard is not disturbed.
The parties shall bear their respective costs . ------Aarushi case: Court holds
Talwars accused in the murders Dr Rajesh Talwar and his wife Nupur Talwar talk
to media persons in Ghaziabad Dr Rajesh Talwar and his wife Nupur Talwar talk to
media persons in Ghaziabad. The Aarushi Talwar-Hemraj Banjade double murder case
- possibly India's most hig h-profile homicide investigation in recent history -
took a new turn on Wednesda y when a court named the slain teenager's parents as
the prime accused. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court at Ghaziabad
rejected the agency 's closure report in the case and made Drs Rajesh and Nupur
Talwar accused under Section 302 (murder) and Section 201 (causing disappearance
of evidence of offe nce) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in
furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Click here to
Enlarge The media were not allowed to enter the court, but according to CBI
counsel R.K. Saini, special judicial magistrate (CBI) Priti Singh said in her
order: "The co urt has made Rajesh and Nupur Talwar accused and has issued
summons to them aski ng them to appear before the court on February 28." The
court also rejected the Talwars' 90-page protest application seeking re-
investigation of the case. Nupur Talwar, who saw her name flashed on television
as the murder accused, said she was "shattered". "Let the decisionmakers put
themselves in my shoes and see what it means for a mother to lose her only
child." Although Rajesh Talwar had been named as an accused earlier - for which
he was briefly incarcerated and is now out on bail - this is the first time that
the mother has been named. "We are fighting to prove our own innocence for more
than two years now," Nupur Talwar told Mail Today, immediately following the
decision. "We are fighting the wrong battle while the culprits are roaming free.
The premier investigating age ncy has failed us at every step. But we will
continue to fight and Arushi's love remains our driving force." The Talwars'
counsel, Satish Tamta, said the defence is yet to receive the court 's order.
"Nothing can be said at this stage," he said. "Any strategy would be d
22. ecided only after thoroughly reading the court's order." But senior lawyer
Khalid Khan said the court was right in taking such a decision . "The court has
taken cognisance on the basis of material furnished in the clos ure report," he
said. "The court has acted well within its jurisdiction and its order is proper.
There is no illegality." Former Uttar Pradesh Police chief Vikram Singh said the
investigation by the Noi da police was "very professional and based on
evidence". He said: "Our investiga tion was very professional and had no
malice." Singh was the state's director ge neral of police when the double
murder took place on the midnight of May 15, 200 8. Soon after the CBI took over
the case, it had also named domestic helps Raj Kuma r Sharma, Vijay Mandal and
Krishna as the accused. Their counsel Naresh Yadav sa id on Wednesday: "This is
a victory for justice. There have always been attempts to implicate the poor
servants who had nothing to do with the crime. The court has vindicated our
stand." Rebecca John, the Talwars' family counsel, blamed the media for the
order. "It h as all occurred because of media hype," she said, adding:
"Everybody has been se nsationalising the issue. They have viewed the parents as
the Arushi's murderers ." She said no one in the media or among the general
public had any sympathy with t he parents who had lost their only child. "No one
has understood their pain and trauma, and they have consistently hounded them,"
she said. Rebecca added that while they are yet to examine the order, "it is
challengeable ". "There is such a thing as the rule of law," she said. "We would
seek a revisi on in the superior court, which may be the sessions court or the
Allahabad High Court." Rajesh Talwar's sister-in-law Vandana Talwar, too, lashed
at the media. It is because of the media that this has happened," she said.
"This is most unfo rtunate. Now we don't know where to go." Earlier, on Tuesday,
the court heard th e arguments of both sides for more than three hours. Tamta
had submitted that th e CBI closure report had many loose ends and many crucial
points remained unexpl ained. "We had persistently asked the CBI to get the Low
Count Number (LCN) DNA test co nducted in any reputed lab abroad but it never
paid heed," Tamta said. "The test would have yielded substantial results but
that had never been done to date." Rajesh Talwar, still recovering from a
murderous attack on him in January outsid e the same CBI court, said: "It is the
system that has let Aarushi down." He tol d Mail Today: "How long will this
mockery of justice continue? Why doesn't anybo dy believe me? Why can't the
country understand that we have lost Aarushi, our o nly child? I did everything
to cooperate with the CBI, but I don't understand wh y they are doing this to
me." Read more at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/aarushi-case-cbi-court-
says-raj esh-talwar-and-nupur-talwar-are-accused-in-the-murders/1/129218.html
-----
23. Homework Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Math homework help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Research Paper help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Algebra Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Calculus Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Accounting help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Paper Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Writing Help
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Online Tutor
https://www.homeworkping.com/
Online Tutoring
https://www.homeworkping.com/