The Karnataka High Court, on Thursday, adjourned a critical petition until September 26. This petition was filed by two residents of Dharmasthala who are seeking a directive for the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to thoroughly inspect and excavate specific locations in Dharmasthala. They claim to possess additional information, independently gathered, regarding potential burial sites. These new details emerged after a complainant, Chinnaiah (45), initially provided them with information about multiple alleged burial sites containing the remains of women victims of sexual assault.
During the court proceedings, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) B.N. Jagadeesha informed the court that Chinnaiah himself has now been named as an accused and was arrested on August 23. His arrest stems from allegations that he provided false information concerning the purported mass burials.
Claims Deemed ‘False and a Conspiracy’
The SPP highlighted that the ongoing investigation has uncovered several inaccuracies in Chinnaiah’s statements, including details about his return to Dharmasthala. Consequently, the SPP stated that the entire allegation of mass burials appears to be part of a conspiracy, and this aspect is actively under investigation.
Further underscoring the inconsistencies, the SPP informed the court that skeletal remains recovered from one of the thirteen excavated sites were identified through forensic reports as belonging to a male. Moreover, the skull brought forward by Chinnaiah also proved to be that of a male, according to forensic analysis.
Chinnaiah has since admitted that he worked as a sanitary worker and left Dharmasthala in 2014. He stated that all dead bodies he helped bury during his employment were already subjected to police investigation and medical examinations at that time. A new statement from Chinnaiah is expected to be recorded before a Magistrate court.
Following these revelations, Justice M. Nagaprasanna questioned the petitioners’ advocate, emphasizing that their position would be stronger if they possessed independent information, unrelated to Chinnaiah’s now-discredited claims. Senior advocate Deepak Khosla, representing the petitioners, responded by asserting that his clients indeed have more information about potential burial sites that is separate from what they received from Chinnaiah. He requested additional time to formally present this new information to the court.
The court clarified that it cannot compel the SIT to act on such representations without credible, verified information, warning that doing so could lead to a ‘Pandora’s box’ where anyone could seek similar directives. Therefore, the hearing was adjourned, granting the petitioners the requested time to substantiate their independent claims.