THE Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has filed its chargesheet in the actor Twisha case, but questions have been raised over the second postmortem report and the interpretation of injuries found on her body. Lawyer Ankur Pandey, representing Twisha’s father Navnidhi Sharma, said both postmortem reports agree on the cause of death, describing it as asphyxia due to hanging and treating the death as suicide. However, the reports differ significantly on the nature and timing of the injuries. FIRST REPORT RECORDED SEVEN INJURIES: According to Pandey, the initial postmortem report recorded seven antemortem injuries, meaning injuries sustained before death. He said AIIMS Bhopal subsequently examined the injuries in detail in its response sent to ACP Misrod on May 18. The report noted that two small red marks on the neck could have resulted from friction or movement of the ligature and were not nail or finger-pressure marks. Bluish marks on the left hand and wrist were assessed as being one to three days old. INJURIES RAISED POSSIBILITY OF STRUGGLE: Pandey claimed the first postmortem report also recorded some injuries on the wrist and fingers as fresh and appearing to have occurred shortly before death.

 

According to him, AIIMS Bhopal did not completely rule out the possibility that the injuries could have occurred during a struggle or physical altercation. The report, he said, indicated that the injuries occurred before death and therefore could not have been caused while removing the body from the noose or transporting it afterwards. DELHI AIIMS TERMED INJURIES TRANSPORTRELATED: In contrast, the medical board at AIIMS Delhi reportedly classified the same injuries as routine injuries sustained during transportation of the body and ruled out signs of assault, physical altercation or struggle. The difference between the two medical assessments has become a key point of contention. BASIS OF SECOND OPINION QUESTIONED: Pandey has also questioned whether the Delhi AIIMS conclusion was based on a fresh examination of the body, a review of photographs or merely an assessment of existing medical records. He argued that the discrepancy between the two reports requires clarification, particularly as the CBI’s final conclusion submitted to the court relies significantly on the second postmortem report.