'I am trapped', SC begins suo-moto hearing on Twisha Sharma case, here's all that you need to know about it
A CJI bench is currently hearing the matter as of May 25, even as investigators continue to determine whether Twisha"s death was a suicide or the result of dowry-related abuse and foul play.
Total Views |
India's Supreme Court has taken suo motu cognisance of the death of Noida-based model and actor Twisha Sharma, elevating the case from a local criminal investigation to a matter of national judicial attention. The 26-year-old died under suspicious circumstances at her in-laws' residence in Bhopal on May 12, and the case has since been marked by allegations of dowry harassment, conflicting claims of suicide and murder, forensic disputes, public protests, arrests, legal battles, and calls for a CBI inquiry.
Here's how the case unfolded
Twisha Sharma had married Samarth Singh in December 2025, following an engagement held at a Noida flat earlier that May. After the wedding, she relocated to Katara Hills in Bhopal to live with Samarth and his family. Samarth is the son of retired district judge Giribala Singh. The case surfaced on May 12 when Twisha was found dead inside the family home. Contradictory accounts of her final hours emerged almost immediately.
The accused family has maintained that Twisha died by suicide, while her family has alleged that she endured sustained dowry harassment and that her death was neither natural nor self-inflicted. Twisha's relatives reported observing injury marks on her body and contended that she had been subjected to mental and physical abuse following the marriage. They have urged police to treat the case as a dowry death rather than a suicide.
As public interest in the case intensified, the investigation came to centre on three core questions: whether Twisha died by hanging, what accounted for the injuries found on her body, and whether the account given by the accused family was consistent with the forensic evidence.
Messages that deepened suspicion
The initial postmortem was carried out at AIIMS Bhopal. Doctors concluded that the cause of death appeared to be hanging, but the report also documented injuries on Twisha's body, adding complexity to the picture. Subsequent reports indicated that the autopsy had noted multiple antemortem injuries, with samples preserved for toxicological and forensic analysis. Investigators were additionally looking into the possibility of blunt-force injuries.
The presence of these injuries formed the primary basis for the family's demand for a second autopsy, with questions raised about whether the wounds were consistent with suicide or indicative of an 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 provisions related to dowry death and harassment. The following day, a six-member Special Investigation Team was constituted to lead the inquiry. Investigators began scrutinising CCTV footage, digital records, mobile phone data, and communication exchanges, while also attempting to reconstruct the movements of those inside the house during Twisha's final hours.
Samarth Singh remained untraceable for several days during the investigation, prompting police to announce a reward for information leading to his arrest. This development drew further public attention to the case.
In a separate statement, she added that legal proceedings were still at an early stage, noting that no charges had yet been formally framed. The accused family consistently maintained that the case was being shaped by public sentiment and emotional reactions rather than substantiated facts.
Court proceedings and the second autopsy demand
The case moved swiftly into the judicial arena as the investigation progressed. Giribala Singh was granted anticipatory bail, while a Bhopal sessions court rejected Samarth Singh's bail application. Around the same time, Twisha's family stepped up its push for a second autopsy, contending that the first postmortem had failed to resolve key questions surrounding her death.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court subsequently directed that a second postmortem be conducted without delay. AIIMS Delhi constituted a four-member medical board to carry out the procedure in Bhopal, a development seen as significant given that it introduced an independent external panel into what had become a deeply contested forensic dispute.
Family members argued that the accused family's standing and legal background made external oversight of the investigation essential. As the case attracted growing public attention, it also ignited wider debate around the adequacy of dowry laws, the safety of women within marriage, and the manner in which alleged victims are treated in public discourse after death.
Samarth Singh's surrender and police remand
Where the case stands
The Twisha Sharma case currently rests on three competing pillars. The first is the family's allegation that Twisha was subjected to dowry harassment and died under suspicious circumstances following sustained abuse within her marital home. The second is the accused family's categorical denial of any wrongdoing, with their contention that the allegations are entirely unfounded and fuelled by external pressure. The third is the ongoing forensic and judicial process, which has already produced an FIR, an SIT, bail proceedings, a court-ordered second autopsy, police custody of the husband, and now Supreme Court oversight.
The central questions remain unanswered: what precisely transpired in the hours before Twisha Sharma's death, how the injuries on her body came to be, and whether the totality of evidence ultimately points toward suicide, dowry death, or something graver still.
A bench led by the Chief Justice of India is currently hearing the matter as of May 25, even as investigators continue to determine whether Twisha's death was a suicide or the result of dowry-related abuse and foul play.
Here's how the case unfolded
Twisha Sharma had married Samarth Singh in December 2025, following an engagement held at a Noida flat earlier that May. After the wedding, she relocated to Katara Hills in Bhopal to live with Samarth and his family. Samarth is the son of retired district judge Giribala Singh. The case surfaced on May 12 when Twisha was found dead inside the family home. Contradictory accounts of her final hours emerged almost immediately.
CCTV footage from the premises became a key piece of early evidence. It reportedly showed Twisha walking up toward the terrace, followed roughly an hour later by footage of three individuals performing CPR before carrying her downstairs. Crucially, the cameras did not capture what occurred on the terrace itself, leaving a significant gap in the sequence of events, one that has since become central to the investigation.
The accused family has maintained that Twisha died by suicide, while her family has alleged that she endured sustained dowry harassment and that her death was neither natural nor self-inflicted. Twisha's relatives reported observing injury marks on her body and contended that she had been subjected to mental and physical abuse following the marriage. They have urged police to treat the case as a dowry death rather than a suicide.
Twisha's relatives reported observing injury marks on her body and contended that she had been subjected to mental and physical abuse following the marriage. They dismissed the suicide narrative and urged police to treat 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 stated. The family further alleged that Twisha had been under persistent pressure since her marriage, and claimed that dowry-related demands had been made of her.
As public interest in the case intensified, the investigation came to centre on three core questions: whether Twisha died by hanging, what accounted for the injuries found on her body, and whether the account given by the accused family was consistent with the forensic evidence.
Messages that deepened suspicion
The case drew wider attention following the circulation of messages purportedly sent by Twisha shortly before her death, which her family and supporters presented as evidence of her distress. One message, repeatedly referenced in media coverage, read: "I am trapped, bro. Bas tu mat phasna." The line became closely associated with the case and was frequently cited by those alleging that Twisha had been living under emotional duress in her marital home. Her family argued that it reflected fear and desperation in the days preceding her death.
The initial postmortem was carried out at AIIMS Bhopal. Doctors concluded that the cause of death appeared to be hanging, but the report also documented injuries on Twisha's body, adding complexity to the picture. Subsequent reports indicated that the autopsy had noted multiple antemortem injuries, with samples preserved for toxicological and forensic analysis. Investigators were additionally looking into the possibility of blunt-force injuries.
The presence of these injuries formed the primary basis for the family's demand for a second autopsy, with questions raised about whether the wounds were consistent with suicide or indicative of an 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 provisions related to dowry death and harassment. The following day, a six-member Special Investigation Team was constituted to lead the inquiry. Investigators began scrutinising CCTV footage, digital records, mobile phone data, and communication exchanges, while also attempting to reconstruct the movements of those inside the house during Twisha's final hours.
Samarth Singh remained untraceable for several days during the investigation, prompting police to announce a reward for information leading to his arrest. This development drew further public attention to the case.
On Friday, the Madhya Pradesh government referred the matter to the CBI. Investigators are expected to independently examine both sides of the story through hospital records, counselling documents, WhatsApp conversations, and witness statements, with particular focus on establishing the circumstances surrounding an alleged Medical Termination of Pregnancy and whether it coincided with any change in Twisha's emotional state.
Twisha's mother-in-law, retired district judge Giribala Singh, categorically denied all allegations of dowry harassment. "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 said in response to the accusations. She also questioned the manner in which the investigation had been conducted, suggesting that the police had acted under public pressure rather than on credible evidence. "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 a separate statement, she added that legal proceedings were still at an early stage, noting that no charges had yet been formally framed. The accused family consistently maintained that the case was being shaped by public sentiment and emotional reactions rather than substantiated facts.
Court proceedings and the second autopsy demand
The case moved swiftly into the judicial arena as the investigation progressed. Giribala Singh was granted anticipatory bail, while a Bhopal sessions court rejected Samarth Singh's bail application. Around the same time, Twisha's family stepped up its push for a second autopsy, contending that the first postmortem had failed to resolve key questions surrounding her death.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court subsequently directed that a second postmortem be conducted without delay. AIIMS Delhi constituted a four-member medical board to carry out the procedure in Bhopal, a development seen as significant given that it introduced an independent external panel into what had become a deeply contested forensic dispute.
Twisha's family staged a demonstration outside the Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister's official residence after reportedly being unable to secure a meeting with him. The protest was centred on two demands: a second postmortem and a CBI-led independent inquiry.
Family members argued that the accused family's standing and legal background made external oversight of the investigation essential. As the case attracted growing public attention, it also ignited wider debate around the adequacy of dowry laws, the safety of women within marriage, and the manner in which alleged victims are treated in public discourse after death.
Samarth Singh's surrender and police remand
The investigation reached a pivotal moment when Samarth Singh presented himself at the court premises in Jabalpur and was taken into custody. He was subsequently placed on a seven-day police remand for interrogation. His arrest was considered a significant development, as investigators could now directly question the principal accused while simultaneously awaiting the findings of the second postmortem and ongoing laboratory examinations.
Following the High Court's directive and the constitution of the AIIMS Delhi medical board, the second autopsy was carried out in Bhopal. Twisha's father expressed hope that the fresh examination would help bring the truth about his daughter's death to light. Once the second postmortem was completed, Twisha's body was cremated in Bhopal. The findings of the examination are expected to be pivotal in shaping the direction of the prosecution, determining whether the case proceeds primarily on the grounds of dowry death, abetment of suicide, or potential homicide.
Where the case stands
The most consequential development in the case came when the Supreme Court intervened by taking suo motu cognisance of the matter. The move transformed what had been a state-level criminal investigation into a nationally watched judicial proceeding. The court's intervention comes against a backdrop of unresolved questions around forensic evidence, dowry harassment allegations, the conduct of the police investigation, and persistent demands for an independent inquiry.
The Twisha Sharma case currently rests on three competing pillars. The first is the family's allegation that Twisha was subjected to dowry harassment and died under suspicious circumstances following sustained abuse within her marital home. The second is the accused family's categorical denial of any wrongdoing, with their contention that the allegations are entirely unfounded and fuelled by external pressure. The third is the ongoing forensic and judicial process, which has already produced an FIR, an SIT, bail proceedings, a court-ordered second autopsy, police custody of the husband, and now Supreme Court oversight.
The central questions remain unanswered: what precisely transpired in the hours before Twisha Sharma's death, how the injuries on her body came to be, and whether the totality of evidence ultimately points toward suicide, dowry death, or something graver still.