The Noida double murder case refers to the unsolved murders of 13-year-old girl Aarushi Talwar and 45-year-old Hemraj Banjade, a male live-in domestic worker employed by her family. The two were killed on the night of 15–16 May 2008 at Aarushi’s home in Noida, India. The case aroused public interest as a whodunit story, and received heavy media coverage. The sensational media coverage, which included salacious allegations against Aarushi and the suspects, was criticized by many as a trial by media. In November 2013, the parents were convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, but many critics argued that the judgment was based on weak evidence. The Talwars challenged the decision in the Allahabad High Court. On 12 October 2017, the court acquitted them, calling the evidence against them unsatisfactory and severely criticising the police, CBI and the media for not having investigated the murder properly. On 8 March 2018, the CBI has challenged the acquittal in Supreme Court. The case remains unsolved (Source: wikipedia).

Expectedly, the case found a film adaptation in 2015, with Meghna Gulzar and writer Vishal Bhardwaj staying very close to the events (if a bit biased in favor of the parents) but adding a number of cinematic elements that result in a very intriguing production.

The film presents the case from a number of perspectives. First, from Inspector Daniram’s, a highly incompetent, tobacco-chewing police officer, who messes up every aspect of the research and ends up deeming the murder an honor killing, and arresting the parents as perpetrators. His efforts and the ones of his direct superiors are presented as being driven by a need to solve the case as soon as possible, with the incompetence of his and his higher-ups, though, leading to exactly the opposite outcome.

The second perspective is the one of Joint Director Ashwin Kumar of the Central Department of Investigation (CDI) and ACP Vedant Mishra, who take over the case, after the failure of the local police. The two of them are obviously more intelligent, more capable, and more thorough, and their investigation leads them towards an employee of the father of the victim and his friend. Their tactics, though, who include violence even against Daniram, eventually take their toll, particularly after their higher up retires and the man who replaces him has another agenda in his mind. Furthermore, a rather unexpected betrayal makes things even worse, particularly for Kumar, who is also in the middle of a divorce.

The third perspective is the one of Paul, the one who takes up the research last, and once again, turns against the parents. The last two theories eventually clash during a meeting with everyone present, in the most impressive scene of the film.

Meghna Gulzar follows an approach that seems Rashomon-esque, but as the movie progresses, his true intent, of making a number of sociopolitical comments, is revealed gradually. In that regard, the role the press and public opinion play is criticized quite harshly, since they are presented as the driving force of even official legal decisions.

The main critique, however, is directed towards every level of the police force. In that fashion, Inspector Daniram, who represents the lower level, is depicted as completely incompetent, with Gajraj Rao acting as a caricature, void of any kind of seriousness. Ashwin Kumar and Vendant Mishra are highly intelligent and competent, but also cocky and with a mentality that makes obvious that they thing that they are above the law, something that eventually turns them into bullies. Irfan Khan and Sohum Shah portray all the aforementioned elements quite convincingly, with particularly the former, highlighting the fact that his character considers himself a star. The clashes, betrayals, friendship, and political games that take place among these two and the higher levels of police hierarchy highlight the corruption of the force, and are actually presented as the reason the case is not solved, a decade after the actual deed.

These two axes, of the different perspectives and the commentary regarding police and society are the main elements of the narrative, with the first one being “responsible” for the entertainment and the second for the context, in a very well implemented combination. Some elements of dramatization may go a bit too far, while Kumar’s personal life seems completely irrelevant, but these are minor faults, and they do not affect the overall great sense the movie leaves in any way.

A. Sreekar Prasad has done an excellent job in the editing department, keeping the various perspectives clear and easily understood, and inducing the film with a rather fast pace that suits its aesthetics quite nicely. Pankaj Kumar’s cinematography focuses on realism, and on presenting the different perspectives as eloquently as possible, and in that regard, succeeds to the fullest, without any kind of exaltation.

“Guilty” is a very intriguing and entertaining crime thriller, that retains the agony and the interest from beginning to end, without neglecting the comments that deem its context equally rich.