Speaking to TOI from New Delhi, the Talwars' counsel, Rebecca John, termed it the most "explosive" evidence in the case that, when rectified, was "surprisingly accepted by the court". Defence lawyers are expected to strongly highlight this argument in their future appeal in Allahabad high court.
John's claim finds support in senior lawyers and DNA experts who have now come out to question the authentication of CDFD's revised statement. Their allegation: There is no provision for submission of a rectification report on a forensic finding, under law. The CDFD report of 2008 said that the purple pillow cover (labelled as Exhibit-215 in the judgment) discovered from Krishna's (Rajesh Talwar's compounder) room had Hemraj's blood on it. This suggested Krishna's possible involvement in the crime and turned a needle of suspicion towards him. Cut to March 2011 and in a sudden turn of events, CDFD, on being asked by CBI's AGL Kaul, if Krishna's name had appeared as a "typographical error" in the document, seconded it. The pillow cover, it said, was in fact from Hemraj's room.
"To label this error as typographical is not enough, considering it changed the course of the investigation," said Dil Jit Singh Ahluwalia, Supreme Court advocate. He further added , "Any major rectification of the opinion, as done in this case, under the rubric of typographical error, could have been used as a platform by the defence to impeach the credibility of the expert, if it is based on the same parameters as were furnished to him earlier. Embellishments by witnesses are viewed with suspicion." While a numeric figure here and there can be accepted as a typographical mistake and subsequently changed, this particular error (that reportedly occurred more than 10 times in the CDFD report ), Singh said, is of a far more serious nature.
CDFD director Gowrishankar J dismissed the charge and maintained that it was incorrect to accuse the governmentrun organization of "mala fide intentions" . "We were only responding to the request of an investigating agency that submitted our report to the court. If the judiciary thought there was something amiss, it could have dismissed the report (the corrected version) or simply thrown it away," he said.
Nevertheless experts argue the matter needs further scrutiny . "Neither Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act nor Section 293 of CrPC makes any provision to rectify an original report . How was it then allowed in this case?" questioned prominent DNA expert G V Rao.
According to the defence lawyer when the representative of the CDFD was brought in for cross-examination in 2011, he was categorically asked if the lab had re-examined the exhibits to conclude there was a typographical error.
"Not only did he respond in the negative to this, he also had no answers to offer when asked just how CDFD had come to discover the mistake," John stressed, indicating that the forensic team blindly toed the CBI line of investigation.
Anda sedang membaca artikel tentang
'Error' by Hyderabad lab changed course of Aarushi probe
Dengan url
http://sehatnyasusu.blogspot.com/2013/11/error-by-hyderabad-lab-changed-course.html
Anda boleh menyebar luaskannya atau mengcopy paste-nya
'Error' by Hyderabad lab changed course of Aarushi probe
namun jangan lupa untuk meletakkan link
'Error' by Hyderabad lab changed course of Aarushi probe
sebagai sumbernya
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar