Shweta Singh Kirti Reopens Questions Around Sushant Singh Rajput’s Death, but CBI Record Still Finds No Foul Play

More than six years after Sushant Singh Rajput’s death, his sister Shweta Singh Kirti has again spoken publicly about the doubts she continues to carry

including questions about the post-mortem, the locked room at his Bandra residence and what she believes happened in the days before his death.

Her comments, made during a recent conversation with Supertalks By Themovingship, have revived discussion around a case that generated years of investigation, litigation and public speculation. But there is an important distinction: Shweta’s latest statements reflect her personal belief and unresolved concerns. They do not alter the investigative findings placed on record by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

In March 2025, after investigating the case for more than four years, the CBI filed closure reports and said it had found no evidence establishing foul play or criminal involvement in Sushant’s death. The reports were submitted to the relevant courts for consideration.

What Shweta Singh Kirti is questioning now

In the August 2026 interview, Shweta said several aspects of the case still trouble her.

She questioned why the post-mortem was conducted when it was, said Sushant did not normally lock his room and asked how the room came to be locked from inside. Her broader position was that “something was not right.”

Those are questions and beliefs expressed by Sushant’s sister; they are not new forensic findings.

Shweta also said she now feels less focused on receiving formal closure from the CBI and more interested in remembering Sushant’s life and work. At the same time, she reiterated her personal belief that foul play had occurred and referred to what she described as a possible “cover-up.”

That allegation has not been established by the investigative record reviewed for this article.

Her comments about Disha Salian require particularly careful attribution

Shweta also revisited Sushant’s reported state of mind following the death of his former manager Disha Salian.

She said Sushant had been deeply disturbed and recalled him saying that “they will not even spare him.” When asked who “they” referred to, however, Shweta herself said she did not know.

That uncertainty is crucial.

There is no verified evidence in the material reviewed here establishing that Sushant possessed information connected to Salian’s death, that the two deaths were linked, or that a particular individual or organisation threatened him. Any attempt to convert Shweta’s recollection into a proven conspiracy would therefore go beyond the evidence.

What did the CBI actually conclude?

The CBI took over the investigation in August 2020 after the Supreme Court allowed the central agency to continue its probe into Sushant’s death and surrounding circumstances. The court’s August 19, 2020 judgment authorised the investigation but made no finding at that stage on the ultimate cause or criminal responsibility.

After a probe lasting more than four years, the CBI filed closure reports in March 2025.

According to The Indian Express, the agency described the death as a “simple case of suicide” and said it found no evidence implicating the individuals named in the two FIRs investigated in connection with the matter.

India Today separately reported that the closure reports concluded there was no evidence establishing foul play.

That is currently the most important investigative finding when reporting renewed claims of murder or cover-up.

The forensic record had earlier rejected a murder theory

There was also an earlier medical development.

In October 2020, Dr Sudhir Gupta, who headed the AIIMS forensic medical board that examined the available post-mortem and viscera material for the CBI, said the panel had ruled out murder and concluded that the death was a case of suicide.

PTI later reported in 2025 that AIIMS forensic specialists had dismissed allegations of poisoning and strangulation in their medico-legal opinion to the CBI.

That forensic conclusion directly conflicts with Shweta’s continuing belief that foul play occurred.

Both positions should therefore be presented in their proper categories: one as a family member’s personal assertion, the other as the conclusion of the forensic and investigative process.

A closure report is important, but the legal process matters too

There is another nuance that should not be lost.

A CBI closure report does not automatically become a final judicial determination simply because the agency files it. A magistrate can accept the report, reject it or order further investigation, and an aggrieved party can challenge the findings through legal remedies.

In July 2025, a Mumbai court was still dealing with procedural aspects of one of the related closure reports and had sought Rhea Chakraborty’s response before deciding how to proceed.

For that reason, describing the matter simply as “the court proved it was suicide” would be inaccurate based on the sources reviewed here.

The more precise formulation is that the CBI’s investigation found no evidence of foul play and filed closure reports reflecting that conclusion.

Why Shweta says she is shifting toward Sushant’s legacy

One of the most significant parts of Shweta’s latest interview is that she appears to be separating two things: her personal doubts about the investigation and the way she wants to remember her brother.

She said she no longer wants to depend on the CBI for emotional closure and instead wants to “live Sushant” in other words, focus on his life and legacy rather than remain permanently consumed by the circumstances of his death.

That shift provides a more substantial editorial angle than simply repeating another round of conspiracy claims.

Sushant’s screen career included Kai Po Che!, MS Dhoni: The Untold Story, Kedarnath, Sonchiriya, Chhichhore and Dil Bechara. Whatever disagreement remains around his death, his body of work can be discussed independently of theories that have not been substantiated by the official investigation.

The Celebrity Hour Take

Shweta Singh Kirti’s latest remarks deserve to be reported because they show that a formal investigative conclusion does not necessarily produce emotional closure for a family.

But that distinction also creates a responsibility for entertainment publishers. A family member’s belief that something suspicious happened is newsworthy as an attributed statement; it is not evidence that murder, conspiracy or a cover-up occurred.

The strongest version of this story therefore places the two records side by side. Shweta continues to have unanswered questions and has articulated them publicly. The CBI, after years of investigation, found no evidence of foul play and filed closure reports accordingly. AIIMS forensic specialists had earlier ruled out murder. Reporting both is not about dismissing grief or endorsing speculation — it is about keeping belief, allegation and verified findings clearly separated.

Sources & Verification

This report was prepared by cross-checking Shweta Singh Kirti’s August 2026 interview remarks as reproduced by India Today and The Times of India against the official investigative and legal record available around Sushant Singh Rajput’s death.

The CBI’s March 2025 closure-report findings were verified through The Indian Express, India Today and PTI-based coverage. The Supreme Court’s August 19, 2020 judgment was reviewed directly to confirm the legal basis on which the CBI investigation proceeded. AIIMS forensic findings were cross-checked through reporting quoting Dr Sudhir Gupta and later PTI reporting.

No primary upload of the full 2026 Supertalks interview was located through the search results reviewed, so exact quotes from that conversation should be checked against the original video before publication where practical.