In the Dharmasthala mass burial case, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) submitted the complaint report before the Beltangady court in Karnataka. The SIT said that the whole case was fabricated by anti-Dharmasthala activists.
The SIT also named six individuals Chinnayya (A1), Mahesh Shetty Timrodi, Girish Mattannanavar, Jayanth, Vitthal Gowda, and Sujatha Bhatt, as accused. It also sought more time to conclude the investigation. The SIT, in its preliminary probe gave a clean chit to the Dharmasthala authorities.
According to the SIT, the accused persons were paid, coerced and trained to give false statements. The SIT has sought court’s permission to arrest the named accused persons.
The 3,900-page SIT report was submitted after all angles in the case were investigated, including the revised statement of main accused and ‘whistleblower’ sanitation worker Chinnaih.
Meanwhile, BJP leader BY Vijayendra has said that the entire conspiracy was orchestrated by Urban Naxals and those close to Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah. He added that the Burude Gang, which levelled accusations against the Dharmasthala is now being named in the SIT’s chargesheet.
The whole case started when a “witness-complainant” came forward. He claimed he had buried many bodies in and around Dharmasthala between 1995 and 2014. Based on this man’s claim, the police registered an FIR under Section 211(a) of the BNS, which deals with failing to give information to a public servant.
But when the Special Investigation Team (SIT) started investigating, they couldn’t find any evidence to support the story. The SIT then arrested the informer on 23rd August for lying. The SIT stated before the magistrate that the man confessed he had been forced, by Thimarody and the other activists, to make the “false” claims.
Once the investigation started focusing on the activists, they quickly went to the High Court to have the entire case thrown out. They argue that the police made a technical mistake from the very beginning. They claim the police didn’t get the proper permission from a magistrate before registering the case, which they say was required for this type of cognisable offence. They also complained that the SIT harassed them.
In October, it was reported that the same accused activists, who earlier campaigned for FIR registration in the case moved the Karnataka High Court to quash it.
