HC Orders Second Post-Mortem Of Twisha Sharma; AIIMS Delhi Team To Fly To Bhopal Amid 'Gaps' In First Autopsy

In a dramatic turn in the Twisha Sharma death case, the Jabalpur High Court on Friday ordered a second post-mortem, directing that a specialised team constituted by the Director of AIIMS Delhi conduct the procedure in Bhopal.

Justice Avnindra Kumar Singh passed the order after serious concerns were raised regarding the first autopsy report, forensic inconsistencies and gaps in the investigation.

The court directed that Twisha’s body be preserved at minus 80 degrees Celsius till the second autopsy is conducted. Videography of the entire procedure has also been mandated and will form part of the final report.

The Bench discussed multiple options, including transferring the body to AIIMS Delhi or flying an expert AIIMS Delhi team to Bhopal. Eventually, the court favoured the latter arrangement, citing concerns over transportation and preservation of the body.

The AIIMS Delhi Director has now been asked to constitute a medical board for the second post-mortem.

Advocate General Pankaj Singh informed the court that the Madhya Pradesh government had no objection to a second post-mortem and would provide all logistical support required for the exercise.

The High Court also clarified that it continues to have “full faith” in doctors from Madhya Pradesh and that the second post-mortem was being ordered only to maintain public trust and ensure transparency in a highly sensitive case.

The order comes after Republic’s sustained coverage and a series of revelations that triggered massive public outrage and suspicion around the circumstances of Twisha’s death.

Why The Second Autopsy Was Ordered

Explosive points highlighted before the court raised serious doubts over the completeness and reliability of the first post-mortem report.

According to submissions made in court:

Multiple blunt force injuries were recorded on Twisha’s left arm and forearm, but there was allegedly no detailed dissection of musculoskeletal structures to determine the depth and severity of injuries.

Despite the presence of a ligature mark on the neck, no X-ray examination of the neck or cervical spine was conducted.

The lungs, face and eyes reportedly showed findings that are considered atypical for hanging and more consistent with suffocation or strangulation.

Twisha’s actual height was allegedly 176 cm, while the post-mortem report recorded it as 166 cm, raising major questions.

The report reportedly did not specify the age of the blunt force injuries, making it impossible to determine whether they were fresh, recent or old.

Nail scrapings were collected for DNA examination without clarity on whether investigators suspected resistance injuries.

The autopsy was allegedly not conducted by a proper panel of senior doctors and reportedly did not include a female doctor despite Supreme Court guidelines.

Questions were also raised regarding the absence of the alleged ligature material for correlation with neck injuries.

Concerns were additionally raised over the preservation of viscera for toxicological analysis despite reportedly no significant findings in stomach contents, leading to allegations that the final opinion may have been deferred.

Republic had earlier accessed visuals and details suggesting bluish injury marks, unexplained injuries on the neck, arms and legs, as well as questions surrounding the last-minute change of doctors involved in the autopsy.

In-Laws Opposed Second Post-Mortem

During the hearing, Samarth’s legal team opposed the second autopsy and sought custody of Twisha’s body for last rites.

Senior Advocate Mrigendra Singh argued before the court that the family had the right to perform the funeral rites as Twisha was their daughter-in-law.

“We want the body should be handed over to us. We want to respectfully perform the last rites, as she was our daughter-in-law,” he submitted.

However, the High Court proceeded with the order for a second post-mortem, stressing the need for public confidence in the investigation.

Bail Battle Heats Up

In another major development, the Madhya Pradesh government has moved a plea seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Twisha’s mother-in-law Giri Bala Singh, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta personally appearing in the matter.

The High Court has now issued notice to Giri Bala and fixed the matter for hearing on Monday, May 25.

During the hearing, the state argued that there are serious allegations of dowry harassment against both the husband and the mother-in-law, and that the investigation is currently at a “crucial stage”.

The prosecution further submitted that the accused was allegedly not cooperating with investigators and raised strong apprehensions regarding possible tampering with evidence and influencing of witnesses.

SG Tushar Mehta argued before the court that Giri Bala Singh held a position of authority within the matrimonial household and therefore had the capacity to allegedly destroy evidence or interfere with the probe.

The court was requested to make the notice returnable on Monday itself and permit immediate service of notice on the accused.

Launching a sharp attack on the anticipatory bail order, the Solicitor General argued that bail had been granted in a “hurried manner” on the very day the plea was moved, without detailed consideration of the material placed before the court.

During proceedings, a request was also made seeking restraint on media reportage in the case. However, the High Court observed that the media cannot simply be gagged, while simultaneously stressing that all stakeholders must act responsibly as judicial proceedings remain underway.

The notice will now be served to Giri Bala Singh today, with the crucial hearing on the bail cancellation plea scheduled for Monday.

ALSO READ: ‘Why Am I Being Treated Like A Terrorist?’: Giri Bala Grilled Over Call Logs, CCTV Row As SIT Tightens Noose In Twisha Sharma Death Case