Cops blame monkeys for gold theft, close probe after storeroom in-charge dies
In a bizarre case that has drawn scrutiny over police handling of evidence and allegations of a cover-up, Uttar Pradesh Police in Lakhimpur district has
In a bizarre case that has drawn scrutiny over police handling of evidence and allegations of a cover-up, Uttar Pradesh Police in Lakhimpur district has filed a closure report in the matter of gold jewellery that allegedly went missing from a police station store room — after earlier telling the court that monkeys had scattered and carried away the valuables. The latest position taken by the police is that the investigation cannot proceed because the store room in-charge at the relevant time is no longer alive. Read Full Story But the closure report has itself raised fresh questions. The names of the officials identified as store room custodians in the police’s recent press statement do not match the names recorded in earlier court proceedings, adding to concerns over inconsistencies in the official account. The matter originates from a 2007 dowry death case and involves jewellery belonging to the deceased woman that had remained in police custody while the trial continued. A DOWRY DEATH TRIAL, MISSING JEWELLERY AND STRANGE EXPLANATION The case dates back to 2007, when jewellery belonging to a woman in an alleged dowry death case was deposited in the police station store room at Kotwali Sadar in Lakhimpur district as case property. The items reportedly included a ring, nose pin, bangles and a necklace. The jewellery remained in police custody throughout the course of the criminal trial. After the accused husband was acquitted in February 2024, the family moved to court seeking release of the jewellery that had been deposited years earlier. Instead of returning the ornaments, police informed the court that the jewellery had disappeared. According to the explanation placed before the court, the jewellery had been stored inside a cloth bundle, which allegedly got wet due to rain sometime in 2013. Police claimed that the package had then been placed on the roof of the storeroom for drying. While lying there, the package was allegedly damaged and scattered by monkeys, resulting in the disappearance of the jewellery.
COURT FOUND MONKEY EXPLANATION DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE The explanation did not convince the district court. In July 2024, the Lakhimpur court passed an order directing an enquiry into the matter and made a series of observations questioning the police account. The court specifically noted that the story of monkeys damaging and taking away jewellery stored inside a police station raised several serious concerns. It observed that there appeared to be no justification for keeping gold jewellery out in the open to dry after rain. The court also took judicial notice of a police case diary entry dated September 17, 2013. That diary entry recorded that post-mortem packages stored until 2013 had been shifted to the terrace following an inspection by the Zonal Inspector General, after which they were allegedly damaged and scattered by monkeys. The court found this explanation problematic. It observed that gold does not ordinarily get damaged by water and therefore the explanation that jewellery had to be dried outside appeared unacceptable. The judge also noted that the storeroom did not contain only the jewellery in question but also other bundles carrying evidence linked to serious criminal cases. The court questioned why valuable and sensitive evidence material would be exposed in such a manner. COURT SUSPECTED CONSPIRACY AND MANIPULATION Going beyond merely questioning the explanation, the district court ordered the Superintendent of Police to investigate whether there had been deliberate wrongdoing by police personnel. The court’s order recorded concern that officials posted at the police station may have conspired to remove jewellery and other valuable evidence from the store room. It also directed an enquiry into whether case diaries and store room records had been altered to conceal the disappearance. The order noted that the circumstances suggested the possibility that valuable property had been taken away, and false record entries subsequently created to hide the offence. The court also sought compensation for the loss of the jewellery.
The BriefWire