A FATHER’S UNANSWERED QUESTIONS SHAKE IIIT RANCHI: STUDENT’S DEATH SPARKS MURDER ALLEGATION, SIT DEMAND AND LEADERSHIP CHANGE

October 14, 2026

The death of a 19-year-old first-year student at the Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), Ranchi, has triggered serious questions about the circumstances surrounding the incident, after his father rejected the institute’s preliminary account of suicide and demanded an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT). The student, Aditya Kumar, a resident of Purnia district in Bihar, was found hanging in his hostel room on the night of October 10, prompting a police investigation and a fresh dispute over the events preceding his death.

Aditya’s father, Vishnudeo Kumar, a Bihar Police sub-inspector posted at the closed-circuit camera control facility in Patna, has alleged that his son was murdered. He has questioned the physical circumstances in which the body was found and raised concerns about the medical assistance reportedly available at the institute when the incident occurred.

Rejecting the institute’s account, Kumar argued that several details required a thorough and independent examination before any conclusion could be reached. He has urged the Jharkhand government to constitute an SIT, saying that only an impartial investigation would establish what happened to his son.

FATHER QUESTIONS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH

Kumar has cited the dimensions of the hostel room and the furniture inside it as reasons for questioning the suicide explanation. According to his account, the room was approximately seven feet high, while a table inside it stood around three and a half feet tall. He also said that the ceiling fan hung approximately one foot below the ceiling.

He questioned how his 5.5-foot-tall son could have hanged himself under those conditions. Kumar further claimed that there was no ligature mark around Aditya’s neck and argued that this detail warranted medical and forensic scrutiny.

These statements represent the father’s allegations; they do not independently establish that a murder occurred. The circumstances of the death will need to be determined through the police investigation and any relevant medical or forensic findings.

Kumar also raised concerns about the treatment Aditya received after he was discovered. He claimed that no doctor was available on campus at the time and that his son’s friends had told him Aditya was still alive while being taken to hospital. According to the father, the medical facility subsequently declared him dead.

The sequence of events surrounding the discovery, transportation and medical examination of the student has therefore become an important part of the questions raised by his family.

Kumar said he had spoken to his son by telephone at approximately 10 pm on October 10 and had not sensed that he was experiencing distress. He expressed shock that the young man had died within two months of joining the institute.

“I had never imagined that I would lose my son within two months of his admission. I want justice and urge the Jharkhand government to constitute an SIT so that an impartial investigation can be conducted and the truth can come out,” Kumar said.

COMPLAINT AGAINST INSTITUTE AUTHORITIES

The bereaved father has also alleged that the local police station attempted to pressure him into removing the institute director’s name from his complaint.

Kumar said he had filed a complaint against institute authorities, including the director, alleging lapses in connection with the incident. He claimed that the officer in charge of the local police station asked him to remove the director’s name, but that he refused to do so.

The allegation introduces another issue into the case: whether the initial handling of the complaint was appropriate and whether the concerns raised by the family have been recorded and examined fully.

Khelgaon police station officer-in-charge Nirbhay Kumar said that police had registered an unnatural-death case on the basis of the prima facie circumstances. He said the investigation was continuing and that the case would be converted into an FIR if investigators found anything suspicious or identified a possible role played by the institute’s management.

The police position indicates that the investigation remains open. No finding establishing murder or criminal responsibility by institute officials had been announced in the reported account.

INSTITUTE SEEKS A TRANSPARENT INVESTIGATION

A senior IIIT Ranchi official expressed deep sadness over Aditya’s death and said the institute wanted a transparent investigation. The official described Aditya as a good student and said he had received a scholarship of ₹14 lakh from the Union government.

The institute’s representative also acknowledged that the circumstances leading to the student’s death needed to be examined, asking why he had taken such a step and what conditions might have arisen before the incident.

The institute’s position, as reported, was that the matter should be investigated transparently. The questions raised by the family and the preliminary account given by the institution will have to be assessed alongside the evidence gathered by police.

DIRECTOR SENT ON 30-DAY LEAVE

Amid the controversy, IIIT Ranchi director Rajeev Shrivastav has been sent on a 30-day leave. Professor V. M. S. R. Murthy, the current director of the Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology (IIEST), Shibpur, has been given additional charge as officiating director of IIIT Ranchi for that period or until further orders.

The administrative change comes as the institution faces scrutiny over the circumstances surrounding the student’s death. The reported decision does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing by the director or indicate a finding of responsibility in the case.

A FAMILY DEMANDS ANSWERS

Aditya was a first-year computer science student who joined IIIT Ranchi in August after qualifying for admission through the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) Main. His death has left his family seeking clarity about what happened during the short period he spent at the institute.

Kumar has said that he left all his son’s belongings—including his laptop, mobile phone, books and other personal items—in the hostel room. He said he would not take them back until an impartial investigation into the death had been conducted.

The family’s demand is centred on establishing the facts rather than accepting a preliminary explanation without further examination. The questions it has raised concern the physical circumstances in the hostel room, the availability of medical assistance, the events surrounding the transfer to hospital and the handling of the complaint against institute authorities.

For now, police have registered an unnatural-death case and said that further action will depend on the findings of the investigation. The father continues to press for an SIT, while the institute has expressed support for a transparent inquiry.

The decisive issue is whether the investigation can establish a clear account of Aditya’s final hours and address the concerns raised by his family. Until the evidence has been examined and the authorities reach their conclusions, the allegation of murder remains the father’s claim, not an established finding. The family is seeking an independent probe so that the circumstances of the 19-year-old student’s death can be determined and accountability pursued if wrongdoing is established.