This case revolves around an inexplicable incident in which the Uttar Pradesh Police in Lakhimpur district closed an investigation related to missing gold jewellery from a police station storeroom. Reportedly, the police stated that monkeys had carried away the valuables, but the closure report raises several questions regarding the handling of evidence and claims of a potential cover-up.

The matter can be traced back to a dowry death case from 2007, involving jewellery belonging to a deceased woman that had been held in police custody as case property during the ongoing trial. Following the acquittal of the husband in February 2024, the family sought the return of the items, only to be informed that the jewellery had vanished.

The police explained that the jewellery had been stored in a cloth bundle which deteriorated after being left on the roof of the storeroom to dry, allegedly damaged and scattered by monkeys. This unusual rationale has led to significant scrutiny from both the public and the court.

District Court’s Reaction to Police Explanation

The district court found the monkeys’ explanation implausible. In July 2024, the Lakhimpur court mandated an inquiry into the matter, expressing serious concerns about the police account of the incident. The court noted that there was no justification for leaving valuable items exposed to potential damage from the elements.

Further raising doubts, the court highlighted entries from the police case diary dated September 17, 2013, which indicated that post-mortem packets were moved to the terrace following an inspection. Items had allegedly been damaged by monkeys, which contradicted standard practices regarding the storage of evidence. The court asserted that gold does not typically suffer damage from water, questioning the need to dry jewellery outside.

The court’s suspicions intensified, prompting them to direct the Superintendent of Police to investigate potential misconduct by police personnel related to the missing jewellery. It hinted at the possibility of a conspiracy among the police to misappropriate evidence from the storeroom.

Closure of the Investigation by Uttar Pradesh Police

This statement has generated further confusion, as the names mentioned do not correspond with those recorded in earlier court documents. The court had identified various individuals, leaving the discrepancy about who was in charge of the storeroom during the alleged theft in question.

Families affected by the case expressed frustration and disbelief at the police’s handling of the investigation. Shailendra Gaud, an advocate for the family, highlighted the inconsistencies regarding the names of the custodians and the lack of accountability following the loss of the jewellery.

Call for Independent Investigation

Legal experts, including senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, have voiced the need for an independent investigation, questioning whether the case should remain with the police given the discrepancies in their account. They suggested that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) might be required for a thorough examination.

Luthra underscored the importance of record-keeping protocols within police storerooms, emphasising their role in ensuring accountability and preventing theft. He stated that regardless of the death of the in-charge, the investigation should continue to ascertain who benefitted from the alleged crime.

The case remains unresolved, hovering between an extraordinary explanation involving animals and the court’s suspicion that the truth may lie hidden elsewhere. The victim’s family has yet to receive compensation or closure, with significant questions lingering about police procedure and integrity.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share