Twisha Sharma’s body still sits in the dim room at AIIMS Bhopal. The scene echoes the grim find: a 31‑year‑old woman hanging from a framed exercise bar on her terrace in Bhopal. And the silence around her death grows louder with every court decision.
In May, a local judge pushed back on the family’s request for a fresh autopsy, citing concerns about the body’s preservation. Yet the court’s hesitation turned into a major stumbling block for those who doubt the initial findings. They argued the original post‑mortem could miss vital clues. The verdict? A refusal to let a second examination take place in Delhi’s AIIMS.
But here’s the twist: Higher up, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reversed that stance. In a Friday decision, it ordered a second post‑mortem at AIIMS Delhi. The timing’s striking—just days after the lower court’s denial. It shows the district court’s reach can be curtailed by a higher authority. And the choice of AIIMS Delhi signals a demand for a cleaner, perhaps more impartial, procedure.
Family members have stood firmly against cremation. They keep the body as a silent witness, insisting on foul play. That refusal underscores their suspicion of the original report. The fact that the state government now agreed to transfer the case to the CBI shows the weight of the family’s plea. It’s not just a request; it becomes a political statement, pushing for a national agency’s involvement.
Truth is, the CBI’s hand could change the narrative entirely. Their probe might uncover new evidence or confirm the initial cause. It also signals a growing distrust in local forensic procedures. For the neighborhood where the tragedy unfolded, the eyes of the public are now fixed on Delhi’s medical examiner, and beyond that, the CBI’s investigators.
Meanwhile, questions linger: will the second post‑mortem reveal anything beyond the obvious? Or will it simply confirm what the original report already stated? The real story might still lie beyond the filaments of a police file or a courtroom record.
