The defence lawyer for the Talwars, in the Aarushi-Hemraj double murder case, discarded the CBI theory of use of surgical scalpel in slitting the deceased's' throat.
lawyer Satyketu Singh said that there are five statements of Dr Naresh Raj on record and the use of surgical scalpel did not figure in the four statements recorded earlier but, figured only in the fifth statement on October 12, 2009, which is three days before Dr MS Dahiya's statement came up (October 15, 2009). So it was a well-planned conspiracy to plant such a weapon keeping in mind the profession of the accused couple.
Secondly, to justify its claim, the CBI Investigation officer AGl Kaul sought specialist opinion from Dentist Chandra Bhan Singh of Maulana Azad Medical College but finding the opinion not supporting their theory they did not call the prominent dentist for testimony despite including his name in the list of witnesses; instead presented Dr Dinesh as a witness, who is a lecturer of Anatomy who only confirmed that Anatomy is taught in the dentist degree course.
Contrary to this Dr Amuly Chaddha, a dentist, contradicted the CBI claim that 0.7 mm cutting edge of the surgical scalpel cannot slit the trachea of the throat, whereas the deceased's throat was found severed from the trachea. To support his statement, Dr Amulya presented the surgical scalpel before the court for the first time, while scientist Dr MS Dahiya had denied that he had seen the surgical scalpel earlier and had given his statement purely based on documents.
Thirdly, no witness in the case has submitted that the sharp-edged cut injury was created by a trained person from medical background. So, it is also a hypothesis of the CBI that dentist parents used surgical scalpel to kill the deceased.