Advocates Tanvir Mir, Satyektu Singh and Manoj Sisodia, who represent the couple in the court, sought for the reports of narco, lie-detector and polygraph tests of Rajkumar, Krishna and Vijay Mandal.
However, prosecutor BK Singh objected and claimed that defence counsel can make such a demand only when their questioning begins. The judge of the CBI court, S Lal, however, reserved the order for Saturday.
The Talwars may get some sort of relief if the judge accepts the defence counsel's plea and asks to submit the reports of three domestic helps during the court hearing.
The doctor couple earlier on Thursday faced several questions when a senior technical examiner at the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD), SPR Prasad recorded his statement saying that the vaginal smears, which was sent to Hyderabad for examinations, did not match with Aarushi's DNA. However, other DNA samples, which were taken from Aarushi's room, bedsheets, pillow-cover, matched with her.
The forensic lab expert's statement, however, had brought relief for Krishna, Rajkumar and Vijay who earlier were arrested and later were released. The three persons were accused of killing Aarushi and Hemraj. Mr Prasad said that the three accused persons' DNA samples were not found from several particles taken from Rajesh and Nupur Talwar's residence.
The forensic expert's statement raised many questions - who changed the sample of Aarushi's vaginal smears and whose vaginal smears were sent for the examination? If the three accused domestic helps' DNA did not match with any sample, then does it mean that they were innocent?
The CBI had filed a charge-sheet against Nupur and her dentist husband Rajesh Talwar for destroying crucial evidence and misleading the investigators soon after the couple's teenaged daughter Aarushi was found dead at their Noida flat on the morning of May 16, 2008.
Nupur and Rajesh claimed that their domestic help Hemraj had killed Aarushi, but his body was discovered on the terrace of the same building a day later. A CBI court therefore charged the couple under sections 302/304 and 201.