Bhopal:
A courtroom in Bhopal on Wednesday witnessed explosive questions being raised over the police investigation and the AIIMS post-mortem process in the suspicious death of Twisha Sharma, who was found hanging on the terrace of her in-laws’ home on May 12.
Twisha’s death came barely five months after her marriage to Samarth Singh, a lawyer. The victim was 33 years old.
Twisha’s lawyer questioned why the post-mortem report lacks a detailed mention of the injuries found on her body. The counsel argued that had the ligature material -a belt allegedly used in the hanging – been submitted on time, many of the doubts surrounding the case might not have arisen.
Another serious discrepancy pointed out to the judge was that Twisha’s height recorded during the post-mortem reportedly differs from the height mentioned in the police report.
Both sides – the police and Twisha’s family – appeared before the court as the hearing continued. What began as a suspected suicide is now a disturbing trail of unanswered questions, including a missing belt during the post-mortem, alleged gaps in injury documentation, mismatched height records, contradictions in the FIR, CCTV timing discrepancies, and a missing husband.
During the hearing, Twisha’s lawyer raised sharp questions regarding the conduct of both AIIMS and the police, asking why AIIMS did not demand the belt allegedly used in the suicide during the initial post-mortem examination. The family alleges that because the belt was not produced in a timely manner, doctors could not properly correlate the ligature marks on Twisha’s neck with the alleged hanging material.
The lawyer also questioned the presence of Twisha’s mother-in-law’s sister at AIIMS. The mother-in-law, Giribala Singh, is a retired Principal District and Sessions Judge. Her sister reportedly works at Bansal Hospital, prompting Twisha’s lawyer to ask why she was permitted at AIIMS during the post-mortem process.
Another major question raised in court was why the local police station was not informed immediately. The lawyer argued that while it was appropriate to rush Twisha to AIIMS, the failure to notify the police promptly raises serious concerns over how the initial hours after her death were handled.
The family has now formally demanded that Twisha’s body be preserved. In a significant courtroom development, the police submitted in writing that they have no objection to a second post-mortem examination.
However, the mystery goes beyond the medical examination.
CCTV footage related to Twisha’s death has raised perhaps the most troubling question in the case. According to the footage, Twisha is seen going upstairs toward the terrace around 7:20 pm. Around 8:20 pm, three people are reportedly seen bringing her body down the stairs. Yet, the FIR records her time of death as 10:50 pm. This nearly three-hour gap has become a central focus of the case. Was the CCTV timestamp incorrect? Was the time of death wrongly recorded? Or does this gap point to something more sinister?
The FIR itself has also come under scrutiny. Twisha’s age is mentioned inconsistently across the document: in one place, her date of birth is recorded as April 16, 1987; elsewhere, her age is stated as 33 years, while another section lists it as 31. For the family, these contradictions are not minor clerical errors, but signs of a compromised probe that demands deeper examination.
There is another glaring contradiction.
The FIR reportedly states that the body was handed over to the family, yet Twisha’s family has not yet claimed it. The body has remained in the mortuary since May 13.
Police have written to the family asking them to claim the body for final rites, noting that it has begun to decompose. The family, however, maintains they will not claim the body until appropriate legal action is taken against the accused.
The belt remains at the center of the controversy.
When questioned, the Bhopal Police Commissioner reportedly stated that the belt had been seized by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) team but was not sent to the hospital in time.
The top officer admitted this could be treated as negligence and announced a separate inquiry into the lapse. However, police maintain that the belt was later sent, a correlation report was received, and the initial delay did not affect the final investigation.
Twisha’s husband, Samarth Singh, remains the key accused. While Twisha died on May 12, the FIR was not registered until May 15.
The court has already rejected Samarth’s anticipatory bail plea, and police have announced a reward of Rs 10,000 for information leading to his arrest.