Patna: The investigation into the death of a NEET aspirant in Patna, who allegedly died following sexual assault, has come under renewed scrutiny after a medical board at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) said it could not offer a scientific or ethical opinion without complete documents.
Forensic experts at AIIMS have told investigators that a post-mortem review cannot be conducted on the basis of partial paperwork. They have sought the entire medical chain – from the student’s initial treatment to her death – warning that any conclusion drawn from incomplete records would be unreliable.
Despite this, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the case has submitted a preliminary report to the Bihar director general of police. The report is based on questioning 15 to 17 people, including hospital staff, hostel employees and family members. However, the documents required for a comprehensive medical review remain unavailable to the AIIMS board.
Doctors involved in the review have taken a firm stance, saying that forming an opinion without the post-mortem video, forensic findings and full treatment records could seriously compromise the investigation. “In cases like this, every document matters,” a senior forensic expert said, according to officials familiar with the process.
The direction of the case shifted dramatically after a post-mortem report from Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH) stated that sexual assault could not be ruled out. The report cited bodily injuries and indications of forced intercourse, raising questions about the police’s initial theory that the student had died after consuming sleeping pills.
The AIIMS review is now expected to play a decisive role in determining the course of the investigation. A panel of five senior doctors – from forensic medicine, gynaecology, neurology, radiology and the medical board – has been constituted, with the possibility of additional specialists being included if required.
Meanwhile, the student’s family has alleged that they are being subjected to undue pressure by investigators. Her parents say the SIT has repeatedly questioned them, often asking the same questions, causing severe mental distress. They maintain that their daughter was focused on her studies, showed no signs of stress and had never expressed fear or mentioned any threat.
Investigators have also questioned the student’s maternal uncle and cousin, a move the family says reflects a “misreading” of normal family interactions. “These were ordinary conversations, nothing more,” the family told officials.
Several gaps in the investigation have drawn criticism. The hostel manager has not been taken into custody, while the hostel owner and his son are reportedly absconding, with no arrests made so far. Crucially, CCTV footage that could clarify who took the student from the hostel to the hospital, and when, has not been made public.
The case dates back to January 6, when the student was found unconscious in a girls’ hostel in Patna, a day after she arrived from her home town. She was treated at multiple hospitals as her condition deteriorated, and died on January 11. Initially, police suggested suicide based on a urine test and the student’s mobile phone search history, ruling out sexual assault.
Public pressure mounted after the PMCH post-mortem findings emerged, prompting the registration of an FIR and the formation of an SIT on January 16. Investigators are now examining four possible angles: events before the student arrived in Patna, her movements after reaching the hostel, what happened within the hostel premises, and her contact with a close associate.
At the centre of the controversy remains a single unresolved question: if the investigation hinges on medical evidence, why has the complete set of documents not been provided to the medical board?
AIIMS doctors have warned that proceeding with “half the papers” risks suppressing the truth and undermining the credibility of justice itself.
