Twisha Sharma Death Probe Faces Fresh Scrutiny Over Ligature Handling; Court Filings Trigger Questions

As the Supreme Court prepares for a suo motu hearing, discrepancies regarding evidence preservation and forensic procedure have cast a long shadow over the investigation into the actor-model’s death.

The investigation into the death of 31-year-old Twisha Sharma has entered a volatile new phase, with the twisha sharma death probe facing intense public and legal criticism over the handling of a central piece of forensic evidence. As the case moves toward a Supreme Court hearing, fresh court filings trigger questions about the integrity of the chain of custody for the ligature material allegedly used in the incident, which occurred at the Bhopal residence of her in-laws on May 12.

Forensic Lapses and Procedural Omissions

Legal teams representing the complainant have pointed to significant procedural gaps, specifically regarding how the ligature was identified and seized. Documents submitted to the Madhya Pradesh High Court highlight that the seizure memo, dated May 13, fails to record the identity of any individual who confirmed the object as the one connected to the death. While Sub-Inspector Dinesh Sharma executed the seizure, the absence of a witness identification process has raised concerns about the provenance of the evidence. Furthermore, allegations have emerged that the ligature remained in the custody of the investigating officer, allegedly kept within his vehicle before being transferred to AIIMS Bhopal, a practice that defense critics argue compromises the forensic sanctity of the material.

The ligature handling concerns are compounded by the fact that the material was not initially presented during the first post-mortem examination. Forensic experts and the victim's family have emphasized that failing to produce the ligature at the time of the autopsy prevented a direct, scientific comparison with the injury marks on the neck. The autopsy report itself, which noted double ligature marks, has only intensified the demand for a second, independent post-mortem, which the family has sought to conduct at AIIMS Delhi to uncover the truth behind the case.

Institutional Scrutiny and Conflicting Claims

The mystery surrounding the death of the former Miss Pune has sparked a nationwide debate on institutional bias. The victim's relatives have alleged that the scene of the incident was not properly secured for nearly 48 hours, providing ample time for the destruction or alteration of evidence. These claims are bolstered by a dispute over CCTV footage; while the family of the husband, Samarth Singh—son of retired judge Giribala Singh—argues that the surveillance system suffered from technical defects and timestamp errors, investigators are still grappling with a critical gap in the timeline during which the events on the terrace occurred.

Bhopal Police Commissioner Sanjay Kumar has maintained that the probe is proceeding under the assumption of suicide, citing that an FIR was registered promptly and that the forensic reports regarding the ligature generally align with the autopsy findings. However, this narrative remains at odds with the victim's family, who have staged protests alleging a "well-planned murder" and systemic negligence. With the Supreme Court taking suo motu cognizance of the matter, the focus has shifted from local police findings to whether the influence of the accused’s family has hindered the path to justice. As the CBI begins its ground-level investigation, the scrutiny remains fixed on whether the procedural irregularities were mere lapses or a calculated attempt to obfuscate the circumstances of a life lost under deeply suspicious conditions.