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 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.

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.

INVESTIGATION CAN’T CONTINUE, SAY POLICE

Nearly two years later, Uttar Pradesh Police has now moved to close the matter.

In a press statement issued on June 17, Lakhimpur police said that the two officials who had served as head moharrirs — effectively store room custodians — during the relevant period between 2007 and 2009 had passed away.

According to the statement, the officials were Chandrika Prasad and Rambaksh Pal.

Police said Chandrika Prasad died in 2009, though no date of death was provided for Rambaksh Pal.

Based on this, police said that further investigation was not possible, and a closure report had been filed.

CONTRADICTIONS OVER WHO WAS IN-CHARGE

However, the closure report has opened another line of questions.

The names cited in the police statement do not align with names mentioned in the district court’s 2024 order.

The court order referred to a report submitted by the then store room in-charge while responding to the family’s application for release of jewellery.

That report had stated that the post-mortem package containing the jewellery had not been handed over in records.

It also identified four former store room in-charges — Molheram, Ramakant Tiwari, Mewaram and Ishwar Dayal.

Of these, only Ishwar Dayal was noted to have died.

The mismatch between the court record and the latest police statement has triggered questions over who actually held responsibility for the store room during the period when the jewellery allegedly disappeared.

FAMILY QUESTIONS CLOSURE, SAYS NO JUSTICE YET

Speaking to India Today, advocate Shailendra Gaud, who represents the deceased woman’s family, questioned the shifting versions.

According to Gaud, there appears to be little clarity on who was actually in charge of the store room when the alleged monkey incident took place.

“The names are different, the story changes, and now they claim that the store room in-charge is dead. It is clear that the police is trying to hide or shield whoever stole the jewellery and other things from the store room,” Gaud said.

He also pointed out that while the police press statement says a closure report has been filed, no such filing was visible in court records so far.

Gaud further said that despite the court’s earlier observations, the family has neither received compensation for the missing jewellery nor seen any meaningful accountability.

“The 2024 order called for compensation for the lost jewellery and investigation into the incident. We have received neither compensation nor justice,” he said.

CALLS GROW FOR CBI ENQUIRY

Senior advocate and former Additional Solicitor General Siddharth Luthra also questioned whether the matter should remain with the police.

Speaking to India Today, Luthra said the court had attempted to ensure a fair and effective investigation, but the police response itself appeared to contain discrepancies.

He suggested that despite the passage of time, an independent investigation — including a possible CBI probe — may be appropriate.

Luthra pointed out that police rules require detailed documentation inside store rooms and maintaining records for every entry and exit of seized property.

According to him, such procedures are intended precisely to ensure accountability.

He said the circumstances point either to culpability or serious negligence on the part of whoever maintained the records.

“Either the record keeper was involved or was negligent enough to permit others to commit theft or criminal breach of trust,” Luthra said.

He added that even if the concerned store room official is no longer alive, the enquiry cannot end there.

“The issue of who conspired with him or abetted him and who benefited from the offence must still be investigated,” he said.

For now, the case remains caught between an explanation involving monkeys and a court’s suspicion that the real story may lie elsewhere.

- Ends