After initially blaming monkeys for the disappearance of gold jewellery, police closed the probe citing the death of the storeroom in-charge. The closure report has sparked fresh controversy as officials’ names differ from those recorded in earlier court proceedings.
In a bizarre incident that has sparked scrutiny of police handling of evidence and allegations of a cover-up, Uttar Pradesh Police in Lakhimpur district has filed a closure report in a case involving gold jewellery allegedly missing from a police station store room after earlier claiming that monkeys scattered and carried away the valuables.
Police have now taken the position that the investigation cannot continue because the store room in-charge at the relevant time is no longer alive.
However, the closure report itself has raised fresh concerns: the names of officials cited as store room custodians in a recent police press statement reportedly do not match the names recorded in earlier court proceedings, fueling doubts about inconsistencies in the official account.
The matter traces back to a 2007 dowry death case and involves jewellery belonging to the deceased woman, which stayed in police custody while the trial proceeded.
In 2007, jewellery belonging to a woman in an alleged dowry death case was reportedly deposited in the store room of Kotwali Sadar in Lakhimpur district as case property. The items said to have been included were a ring, nose pin, bangles, and a necklace. The jewellery allegedly remained in police custody during the criminal trial.
After the accused husband was acquitted in February 2024, the woman’s family moved to court seeking release of the ornaments. Instead of returning the jewellery, police informed the court that it had disappeared.
Police told the court that the jewellery had been stored inside a cloth bundle, which supposedly got wet due to rain in 2013. Police claimed that the bundle was then placed on the roof of the store room to dry. According to the police, while it lay there, the package was damaged and its contents scattered by monkeys, leading to the jewellery’s disappearance.
The explanation did not convince the district court. In July 2024, the Lakhimpur court ordered an enquiry and made observations casting doubt on the police version.
The court noted that the “monkeys” explanation raised serious concerns, including the fact that there appeared to be no reason to keep gold jewellery out in the open merely to dry after rain.
The judge also took judicial notice of a police case diary entry dated September 17, 2013, which recorded that post-mortem packages stored until 2013 were shifted to the terrace after an inspection by the Zonal Inspector General, following which they were allegedly damaged and scattered by monkeys.
The court found this line of reasoning problematic, observing that gold does not ordinarily get damaged by water, making the need to dry it outside difficult to accept. The court also pointed out that the store room did not contain only the jewellery in question, but also other evidence bundles related to serious criminal cases raising questions over why such valuable material would be exposed in that manner.
Going beyond questioning the explanation, the court directed the Superintendent of Police to investigate whether there was deliberate wrongdoing by police personnel. The court expressed concern that officials posted at the police station may have conspired to remove the jewellery and other valuable evidence from the store room. It also asked to examine whether case diaries and store room records had been altered to hide the disappearance.
The court noted that the circumstances suggested the possibility of valuable property being taken away and false record entries created to conceal the offence. It also sought compensation for the loss of the jewellery.
Nearly two years later, Uttar Pradesh Police has moved to close the matter. In a press statement dated June 17, Lakhimpur police said that two officials who served as head moharrirs functioning as store room custodians during the relevant period between 2007 and 2009 have died.
Police named Chandrika Prasad and Rambaksh Pal. According to the statement, Chandrika Prasad died in 2009, though no date of death was given for Rambaksh Pal. Police stated that because of this, further investigation was not possible, and a closure report had been filed.
However, the closure report has triggered another round of questions. The names cited in the police press statement do not match those mentioned in the district court’s 2024 order.
The court order referred to a report submitted by the then store room in-charge in response to the family’s application for release of the jewellery. That report allegedly said the post-mortem package containing the jewellery had not been handed over in the records.
It also reportedly identified four former store room in-charges: Molheram, Ramakant Tiwari, Mewaram, and Ishwar Dayal. Of these, only Ishwar Dayal was noted to have died.
This mismatch between the court record and the police’s latest statement has raised concerns over who actually held responsibility for the store room at the time the jewellery allegedly disappeared.
For now, the case remains trapped between an explanation involving monkeys and the court’s suspicion that the real story may lie elsewhere.
