<p>In their affidavit, the Talwars claimed that a DNA test conducted on November 6, 2008 had concluded that the finger marks found on the terrace of their house, on a whiskey bottle found inside the house and on the pillow of another domestic servant Krishna, belonged to "the same person and most certainly a male".<br /><br />The Talwars also alleged they were denied access to Aarushi's computer, seized by CBI for investigations, despite an application moved under the Information Technology Act.<br /><br />The couple submitted that they needed access to the computer to find out who could have switched on the router, which was essential for having access to the Internet.<br /><br />The router was found to be on when Aarushi was found dead inside her room on May 15, 2008.<br /><br />Besides, it was submitted on behalf of the Talwars that there was no evidence against the girl's mother Nupur in the case diary which could validate the summons issued to her, along with husband Rajesh, by the CBI court.<br /><br />The Talwars' counsel Gopal Chaturvedi argued that the court could have proceeded against Nupur only under Section 319 CrPC if in course of trial any evidence of her complicity in the murder had emerged.<br /><br />CBI counsel Nazrul Islam Jafri rebutted the Talwars' submission made last Friday that the agency had "no power to oppose the petition", saying "the CBI was not a party in the case and it was arguing the matter only to assist the court".<br /><br />Responding to the petitioners' earlier submission that the court had "wrongly" decided to conduct trial against them despite the fact that the CBI had not named them as suspects in its closure report, Jafri said, "If a magistrate is not satisfied with the conclusions of the investigating agency, he or she is free to take any decision in this regard."<br /><br />Jafri also pointed towards the testimony of the Talwars' driver Umesh Sharma, who had stated that he saw Aarushi along with her parents at their dining table around 9.30 pm on May 15, 2008.<br /><br />"In her testimony, the Talwars' maid servant Bharati had said that on the next morning at 6.30 am, she woke up the couple when Aarushi did not respond to the knocks on her door. Nupur thereafter opened the door with the help of the key she was in possession of.<br /><br />This proves that the murder took place between the period Umesh went to the house and Bharati came to attend to her daily chores. The burden of proving what happened in the mean time, lay on the Talwars," Jafri said.<br /><br />As the day drew to a close, Justice Bala Krishna Narayana adjourned the matter for further hearing tomorrow.</p>
<p>In their affidavit, the Talwars claimed that a DNA test conducted on November 6, 2008 had concluded that the finger marks found on the terrace of their house, on a whiskey bottle found inside the house and on the pillow of another domestic servant Krishna, belonged to "the same person and most certainly a male".<br /><br />The Talwars also alleged they were denied access to Aarushi's computer, seized by CBI for investigations, despite an application moved under the Information Technology Act.<br /><br />The couple submitted that they needed access to the computer to find out who could have switched on the router, which was essential for having access to the Internet.<br /><br />The router was found to be on when Aarushi was found dead inside her room on May 15, 2008.<br /><br />Besides, it was submitted on behalf of the Talwars that there was no evidence against the girl's mother Nupur in the case diary which could validate the summons issued to her, along with husband Rajesh, by the CBI court.<br /><br />The Talwars' counsel Gopal Chaturvedi argued that the court could have proceeded against Nupur only under Section 319 CrPC if in course of trial any evidence of her complicity in the murder had emerged.<br /><br />CBI counsel Nazrul Islam Jafri rebutted the Talwars' submission made last Friday that the agency had "no power to oppose the petition", saying "the CBI was not a party in the case and it was arguing the matter only to assist the court".<br /><br />Responding to the petitioners' earlier submission that the court had "wrongly" decided to conduct trial against them despite the fact that the CBI had not named them as suspects in its closure report, Jafri said, "If a magistrate is not satisfied with the conclusions of the investigating agency, he or she is free to take any decision in this regard."<br /><br />Jafri also pointed towards the testimony of the Talwars' driver Umesh Sharma, who had stated that he saw Aarushi along with her parents at their dining table around 9.30 pm on May 15, 2008.<br /><br />"In her testimony, the Talwars' maid servant Bharati had said that on the next morning at 6.30 am, she woke up the couple when Aarushi did not respond to the knocks on her door. Nupur thereafter opened the door with the help of the key she was in possession of.<br /><br />This proves that the murder took place between the period Umesh went to the house and Bharati came to attend to her daily chores. The burden of proving what happened in the mean time, lay on the Talwars," Jafri said.<br /><br />As the day drew to a close, Justice Bala Krishna Narayana adjourned the matter for further hearing tomorrow.</p>