The CBI has apprehended a Class 11 student of Ryan International School for the murder of 7-year-old Pradyuman Thakur. This case seems to be replicating the investigation pattern in the Aarushi-Hemraj murder case. Look at the similarities in the investigation of the two cases so far.
1) Two investigating agencies, two diametrically opposite findings: Noida police in the Aarushi-Hemraj murder case had arrested Dr Rajesh Talwar as the prime suspect. Arun Kumar led CBI team turned the police case on its head and arrested three servants — Krishna, Raj Kumar and Vijay Mondol.
In the Ryan case, Gurugram police arrested bus conductor Ashok and now CBI gives the conductor a clean chit by pinning the blame on the Class 11 student.
2) Timing of arrest: Noida police had arrested Rajesh Talwar, a week after the murder. Media pressure was blamed as a reason why the police rushed in to carry out an arrest.
The Gurugram police went one up and arrested the conductor within 24 hours of the murder. The top cop of Gurugram, in fact boasted to the media that they would crack the case open in 24-48 hours.
Media pressure may be blamed again but should the investigators act under any pressure? Shouldn't conclusive evidence be the basis of arrests?
3) Incomplete chain of evidence: Allahabad High Court ruled that CBI’s final report in the Aarushi-Hemraj murder case was inconclusive. The chain of material and circumstantial evidence is incomplete.
The Ryan murder case investigation is far from over. But CBI sources say that the CCTV footage based on which the new arrest has been carried out also has “dark patches.” Defence may use this point in the court to argue that CCTV images fail to prove beyond doubt as to who killed Pradyuman.
However, the CBI has confirmed that they had treated the CCTV footage to obtain a better resolution. In the Nirbhaya case too, the bus was spotted from CCTV footage which was at best patchy.
4) Cover up: The Ryan management is under the scanner for an alleged cover-up. Was the school aware of the involvement of one of its own students? Were they party to the act of “implicating” the conductor Ashok? The bus conductor’s family has alleged he was beaten up and forced to confess by police on behest of school.
The cover-up in the Aarushi-Hemraj case is legendary. Allegations were made that the crime scene was dressed up. After the high court verdict, no one knows who was responsible for the cover-up. Will CBI answer the question in the Pradyuman case?
5) Murder motive: CBI sources say that the Class XI student wanted to get the upcoming examinations and the parents-teachers meeting postponed and hence he planned the murder. Can a 16, 17 years old go to the extent of killing to avoid an exam?
The theory might sound as unbelievable to some as the prospect of parents killing their daughter in Noida sounded.
6) Blood Stains on the clothes of the accused: The father of the class 11 student in the Ryan case has alleged that his son is being framed. He argues that no blood stains were found on the clothes of his son.
The argument takes you back to Aarushi-Hemraj case again. Blood stains on the clothes of the parents or absence of it was a point of contention in the trial court. CBI had then alleged that washing off the blood-stained clothes was part of the destruction of evidence that parents carried out. The high court has rejected the contention and given the benefit of doubt to the Talwar couple.
Will this prove to be CBI's undoing in the Ryan case too?
Comments
0 comment