Dual AIIMS Opinions on Tvisha Sharma Case Spark Controversy Over CBI Investigation

A sharp discrepancy between forensic findings from two premier medical institutions—AIIMS Bhopal and AIIMS New Delhi—has brought fresh scrutiny to the investigation into the suspected death of Tvisha Sharma.

Advocate Ankur Pandey, representing the victim’s family, raised concerns over how injuries were categorized differently by the two boards. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has largely aligned its closing arguments with AIIMS New Delhi’s findings, which the court is currently reviewing, while setting aside the initial autopsy report prepared by AIIMS Bhopal without presenting clear medical justification.

Contradictory Forensic Evaluations

Both institutions agree on the primary cause of death—asphyxiation resulting from hanging. However, their assessments regarding visible physical injuries diverge significantly:

• AIIMS Bhopal Assessment: The initial medical board recorded injuries across the body, notably on the left hand, wrist, and fingers, classifying them as ante-mortem (sustained prior to death). The board noted that these fresh contusions and abrasions suggested signs of physical struggle or scuffle immediately preceding death. Furthermore, it explicitly ruled out the possibility that the marks were caused while lowering the body or during subsequent transit.
• AIIMS New Delhi Findings: In contrast, the AIIMS New Delhi board classified all external markings as incidental transportation injuries incurred post-mortem. It rejected any indication of physical resistance, assault, or scuffle.

Key Questions Raised by the Defense

Advocate Pandey challenged the forensic basis on which the later report superseded the initial examination:

• Scientific Basis: The defense questioned how markings initially recorded as ante-mortem injuries were reclassified as post-mortem handling trauma without detailed clinical substantiation.
• Scope of Examination: It remains unverified whether the New Delhi panel conducted a direct physical examination of the body or formulated its conclusions exclusively from prior records, autopsy notes, and photographic evidence.
• Admissibility of Evidence: The family’s counsel argued that before discounting the initial findings of the examining forensic team in favor of a subsequent review, the prosecution must provide sound, scientific reasons on record to ensure judicial transparency.