Sign In
By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
By signing in or creating an account, you agree with Associated Broadcasting Company's Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.
New Delhi: Digital crime records in Madhya Pradesh’s Mauganj have revealed major discrepancies in police witnesses across several cases. The irregularities came to light after multiple FIRs were reviewed through the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network (CCTNS) under the Union Home Ministry project.
At least six names have appeared repeatedly in multiple cases—ranging from late-night raids to routine seizures—raising serious concerns. The same individuals were allegedly used as government witnesses in several cases registered at the Laur and Naigadhi police stations in the district.
The prime accused in the matter is Jagdish Singh Thakur, the former in-charge of both Laur and Naigadhi police stations. An RTI activist lodged the complaint, accusing Thakur of misusing his authority to register nearly 150 questionable FIRs. The complaint alleged that the same witnesses were repeatedly used to legitimise cases and facilitate corruption.
Among the six individuals, Amit Kushwaha’s name surfaced repeatedly. He allegedly moved with Thakur during his transfers. RTI activist Kunj Bihari Tiwari filed his first complaint in 2022, followed by a second complaint in December 2025, submitting detailed evidence.
Acting on the complaint, Mauganj Superintendent of Police Dilip Soni removed Thakur from his post and ordered a detailed inquiry into the allegations.
In the evidence shared by Tiwari, he highlighted nearly 145 FIRs featuring common witnesses. “This is not the only reason for my complaint. Some of the listed witnesses have now distanced themselves from the police cases,” he said.
During questioning, one witness reportedly told investigators that he had signed as a witness in only one or two cases, while the remaining cases were registered without his knowledge.
Another witness claimed he was not present during police actions and was asked to sign documents after the accused had already been arrested.“I did not sign in so many cases. I am a driver,” The Times of India quoted the witness as saying.
The case exposes serious anomalies in the state’s legal and policing system, pointing to systemic neglect and misuse of authority over an extended period.
