The Special Investigation Team (SIT) investigating the Dharmasthala mass burial case has submitted its complaint report before the Beltangady court in Karnataka, asserting that the entire case was fabricated by anti-Dharmasthala activists. The SIT has named six individuals — Chinnayya (A1), Mahesh Shetty Timrodi, Girish Mattannanavar, Jayanth, Vitthal Gowda, and Sujatha Bhatt — as accused and has sought the court’s permission to arrest them. The investigation team also requested more time to conclude its probe. In its preliminary findings, the SIT had already given a clean chit to the Dharmasthala authorities.
According to the SIT, the named accused persons were paid, coerced, and trained to give false statements. The voluminous 3,900-page SIT report was submitted after investigating all angles, including the revised statement of the main accused and 'whistleblower' sanitation worker, Chinnayya.
The entire case originated when a "witness-complainant" (Chinnayya) came forward, claiming he had buried many bodies in and around Dharmasthala between 1995 and 2014. Based on his claim, the police registered an FIR under Section 211(a) of the BNS (dealing with failing to give information to a public servant).
However, the SIT found no evidence to support the story. The SIT subsequently arrested the informer on August 23rd for lying, stating before the magistrate that the man confessed he had been forced by Timrodi and the other activists to make the "false" claims.
Meanwhile, Bharatiya Janata Party leader BY Vijayendra weighed in, stating that the entire conspiracy was orchestrated by "Urban Naxals" and individuals close to Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah. He added that the "Burude Gang," which initially levelled accusations against Dharmasthala, is now being named in the SIT’s chargesheet.
Once the investigation turned to focus on the activists, they quickly moved to the High Court to have the entire case quashed. They argue that the police made a technical mistake from the very beginning, claiming the police failed to get the proper permission from a magistrate before registering the case, which they allege was required for this type of cognizable offense. They also complained that the SIT harassed them.
It was reported in October that these same accused activists, who had earlier campaigned for the FIR registration, were the ones moving the Karnataka High Court to quash it.
Also read: Bail granted, yet Dharmasthala whistleblower remains behind bars
Follow us
