The family of Twisha Sharma protested in Bhopal after officials admitted a ligature strap was not sent for forensic examination [1].
The incident raises critical questions about the integrity of the investigation into Sharma's death. If key evidence is mishandled or ignored, the legal process may fail to establish whether the death was a result of foul play or other causes.
A postmortem report indicated that Sharma had multiple antemortem injuries [1]. Despite these findings, officials said that the strap used in the incident was not submitted for forensic analysis [1]. This omission has led the family to question the thoroughness of the initial probe and the handling of the crime scene.
On a recent Sunday, Sharma's relatives held a protest in front of the Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister's house [2]. The demonstrators are seeking a new post-mortem examination to be conducted at AIIMS Delhi to ensure a reliable determination of the cause of death [2].
The case has already seen legal developments, as the in-laws of the deceased have been granted bail [1]. The family believes that the lapses in the forensic process may have influenced these legal outcomes or hindered the pursuit of justice.
Bhopal authorities have not provided a detailed explanation for why the ligature strap was omitted from the forensic chain of custody [1]. The family continues to demand transparency, and a comprehensive review of all evidence collected from the scene [2].
“A postmortem report indicated that Sharma had multiple antemortem injuries.”
The failure to analyze the ligature strap represents a significant break in the chain of custody, which can be used by defense attorneys to challenge the validity of the entire investigation. In cases involving suspected dowry deaths or domestic violence, forensic precision is the primary tool for distinguishing between suicide and homicide; without it, the likelihood of a conviction decreases.
