Supreme Court takes suo motu cognisance of model Twisha Sharma's death

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has now taken suo motu cognisance of the death of Noida-based model-turned-actor Twisha Sharma, a development that has pushed the case beyond a local criminal investigation into a matter of national judicial scrutiny. The case, which began with the 26-year-old’s death under suspicious circumstances at her in-laws’ home in Bhopal on May 12, has since spiralled into allegations of dowry harassment, competing claims of suicide and murder, forensic disputes, protests, arrests, court battles, and demands for a CBI probe. A CJI-led bench is expected to hear the matter on Monday as investigators continue examining whether Twisha died by suicide or whether her death was linked to dowry-related abuse and foul play.

How the case began

Twisha Sharma had married advocate Samarth Singh in December 2025 after an engagement ceremony held at a Noida flat in May that year. Following the marriage, she moved to Katara Hills in Bhopal, where Samarth lived with his family. Samarth is the son of retired district judge Giribala Singh. The case came to light on May 12, when Twisha was found dead inside her in-laws’ house. Almost immediately, conflicting versions emerged about what had happened in the final hours before her death. CCTV footage from the house became one of the earliest and most closely examined pieces of evidence. The footage reportedly showed Twisha walking upstairs toward the terrace. Around an hour later, three people were seen attempting CPR before she was carried downstairs. However, the footage did not capture what happened on the terrace itself, leaving a critical gap in the timeline. That missing period became central to the investigation.

Suicide claim versus dowry death allegations

While the accused family’s side maintained that Twisha died by suicide, her family alleged that she had been subjected to dowry harassment and that her death was not natural or voluntary. Twisha’s relatives said that they noticed injury marks on her body and believed she had been mentally and physically tortured after marriage. They rejected the suicide narrative and demanded that police investigate the case as a dowry death. “We have moved an application for a second postmortem of Twisha before the concerned magistrate in Bhopal,” their lawyer said. The family also alleged that Twisha had been under continuous pressure after her marriage and claimed there had been demands linked to dowry. As public attention around the case grew, the investigation increasingly came to revolve around three questions: whether Twisha died by hanging, what caused the injuries found on her body, and whether the sequence of events described by the accused family matched the forensic evidence.

The messages that intensified suspicion

The case gained wider traction on Twisha’s alleged final messages, which her family and supporters described as evidence that she had been in distress before her death. One message repeatedly highlighted in reports read: “I am trapped bro. Bas tu mat phasna.” The message became one of the defining lines associated with the case and was widely cited by those alleging that Twisha had been facing emotional pressure inside her marital home. Her family argued that the message reflected fear and desperation in the days leading up to her death.

Medical findings and first postmortem

The initial postmortem was conducted at AIIMS Bhopal. Doctors stated that the cause of death appeared to be hanging. However, the report also documented injuries on Twisha’s body, complicating the picture. Subsequent reports said the autopsy noted multiple antemortem injuries and preserved samples for toxicology and forensic examination. Investigators were also examining blunt-force injuries. The existence of injuries became a major basis for the family’s demand for a second autopsy. Questions were raised about whether the injuries were consistent with suicide or whether they pointed toward assault before death.

FIR, CBI probe and police investigation

On May 15, police registered an FIR against Samarth Singh and his mother Giribala Singh under dowry death and harassment-related provisions. A day later, a six-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) was formed to probe the case. Investigators began analysing CCTV footage, digital evidence, mobile phone records, and communication exchanges. Police also examined the final hours before Twisha’s death and attempted to reconstruct movements inside the house. During the investigation, Samarth Singh remained untraceable for several days. Police subsequently announced a reward for information leading to his arrest, intensifying public attention around the case. On Friday, the Madhya Pradesh government recommended the case to the CBI. The investigators are expected to independently examine both versions through hospital records, counselling documents, WhatsApp conversations and witness statements to establish the exact circumstances surrounding the alleged MTP (Medical Termination of Pregnancy) and whether it coincided with any shift in Twisha's emotional condition.

What the in-laws said

Twisha’s mother-in-law Giribala Singh, a retired district judge, strongly denied all allegations of dowry harassment. Responding to the accusations, she had said, “Their allegations are completely baseless. Why would we demand a dowry of two lakh rupees when we ourselves gave them seven-and-a-half lakh rupees? It simply makes no sense.” She also questioned the pace and direction of the police investigation. “I think the police, under pressure from these people and because of all these WhatsApp messages and allegations, which have no real basis, acted in haste,” she said. In another statement, she said: “Our lawyer will explain everything. Where have charges been framed? The matter is still at the discharge stage.” The accused family maintained that the case was being driven by public pressure and emotional reactions rather than verified evidence.

Court proceedings and second autopsy demand

As the investigation continued, the matter quickly entered the courts. Giribala Singh secured anticipatory bail, but a Bhopal sessions court rejected Samarth Singh’s bail plea. Around the same period, Twisha’s family intensified its campaign for a second autopsy, arguing that the first postmortem had left crucial questions unanswered. The Madhya Pradesh High Court later directed that a second postmortem be conducted at the earliest. AIIMS Delhi constituted a four-member medical board to carry out the second autopsy in Bhopal. The move was viewed as significant because it brought an external medical panel into a highly contested forensic dispute.

Protest outside CM residence and demand for CBI probe

Twisha’s family also staged a protest outside the residence of the Madhya Pradesh chief minister after they were reportedly unable to meet him. The protest centred around two demands: a second postmortem and an independent probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Family members argued that the investigation required external oversight due to the stature and legal background of the accused family. As the case gained visibility, it also sparked broader public debate around dowry laws, women’s safety within marriage, and the treatment of alleged victims in public discourse after death.

Samarth Singh’s surrender and police remand

The investigation took another major turn when Samarth Singh was finally taken into custody after reaching court premises in Jabalpur. He was subsequently sent to seven-day police remand for questioning. His custody marked a significant development because investigators were now able to directly interrogate the main accused while simultaneously awaiting further forensic findings from the second postmortem and laboratory examinations.

Second postmortem and cremation

Following the high court’s direction and the involvement of the AIIMS Delhi medical board, the second autopsy was conducted in Bhopal. Twisha’s father expressed hope that the second examination would help establish the truth behind his daughter’s death. After the second postmortem was completed, Twisha’s body was cremated in Bhopal. The findings of the second autopsy are expected to play a crucial role in determining whether the prosecution proceeds primarily on a dowry death theory, suicide abetment allegations, or possible homicide-related claims.

Supreme Court takes suo motu cognisance

The latest and most significant development came when the Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the matter. The move elevated the case from a state-level criminal investigation into a nationally watched judicial proceeding. The Supreme Court’s intervention comes amid continuing questions over forensic evidence, dowry harassment allegations, police handling of the case, and demands for an independent probe.

Where the case stands now

The Twisha Sharma case currently rests on three competing pillars. The first is the family’s allegation that Twisha was harassed for dowry and died under suspicious circumstances after sustained pressure inside her marital home. The second is the accused family’s categorical denial that any dowry demand or abuse took place, along with their claim that the allegations are baseless and driven by external pressure. The third is the ongoing forensic and judicial process, which has already resulted in an FIR, formation of an SIT, bail proceedings, a second autopsy ordered by court, police custody of the husband, and now Supreme Court intervention. The central unanswered questions remain the same: what exactly happened in the final hours before Twisha Sharma’s death, how the injuries on her body were caused, and whether the evidence ultimately supports the theory of suicide, dowry death, or something more serious.