Bhopal, June 30: The family of Twisha Sharma, who tragically lost her life due to alleged dowry-related circumstances, has raised serious concerns about the police’s contradictory statements. Her father and brother accused the police of following “someone else’s orders” and fabricating a narrative.
These allegations emerged following conflicting remarks made by Madhya Pradesh Police Commissioner Kailash Makwana and Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) regarding a theft that occurred at the victim’s in-laws’ home.
Earlier on Tuesday, a court in Bhopal rejected a verbal plea from the defense, which sought permission for the accused, retired judge Giribala Singh, to visit his home in connection with the recent theft. The court stated that such requests must be submitted formally in writing.
Twisha’s brother, Harshit Sharma, expressed his disbelief, stating, “The theft occurred at the last moment, involving not just jewelry but also important documents. It is surprising that those sleeping downstairs were unaware that thieves had broken in and even damaged the iron cupboard and locker. These details were not provided by us but were mentioned by the defense lawyer.”
Criticizing the police, Harshit added, “Initially, we thought they were incompetent for not filing an FIR and tampering with evidence. However, when you see the full picture, it is clear they are making deliberate efforts. They should be awarded for following orders without regard for their dignity.”
He further alleged, “In fact, the police arrived at the scene before the theft occurred and caught the thieves with the documents. However, the statements from the police commissioner and ACP contradict each other.”
Harshit continued, “We still do not know how many thieves were involved, what they stole, and what has been recovered. I believe they need more time to fabricate their story.”
He lamented that the system appears to be aiding the accused, making justice seem elusive. Nevertheless, he remains hopeful.
Twisha’s father, Navnidhi Sharma, noted that four different individuals have provided varying accounts regarding the theft: “First the media, then the ACP, the police commissioner, and finally, during today’s court hearing, the lawyer.”
He questioned, “So whom should we believe?”
Navnidhi also remarked, “This was a peculiar theft where the thieves came to steal documents, and it happened under police surveillance, as a police team was patrolling at that time.”
He claimed, “The police caught the thieves but later released them.”
Navnidhi Sharma demanded a thorough investigation into the matter. He also accused the police of “institutional bias,” asserting, “The police are capable; they apprehend the accused when necessary, but fail to arrest them when it seems unnecessary. We have wanted to know from day one whose orders they are following.”
He further requested that the case be transferred to Delhi for “fairness and transparency.”
–
Leave a Comment