With the complainant giving vague responses, the SIT arrested him. He was first taken to a local hospital for a medical tests before being produced before the court.
Published Aug 23, 2025 | 12:01 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 23, 2025 | 12:17 PM
The police team during the exhumation process in Dharmasthala.
Synopsis: The investigation so far covered 17 locations that were shown to the SIT by the complainant but when nothing concrete turned up, it was decided to do a DNA analysis of the small quantify of bones they had recovered and wait for the results. Sources said that the complainant was asked pointed questions at the Belthangady police station such as where he got the initial skull that was produced in court, who was present when he dug the skull and much more.
The sensational Dharmasthala case where a complainant alleged “mass burials” has been arrested by the SIT, on Saturday, 23 August.
SIT sleuths led by its chief Pronab Mohanty allegedly questioned the complainant till the early hours of Saturday morning according to sources.
The investigation so far covered 17 locations that were shown to the SIT by the complainant but when nothing concrete turned up, it was decided to do a DNA analysis of the small quantify of bones they had recovered and wait for the results.
Sources tell us that the complainant was asked pointed questions at the Belthangady police station such as where he got the initial skull that was produced in court, who was present when he dug the skull and much more.
He was also asked if there were any videos of the digging of the skull and in which forest the skulls were found.
With the complainant giving vague responses,the SIT arrested him. He was first taken to a local hospital for a medical tests before being produced before the court.
The complainant, a Dalit man, formerly employed as a sanitation worker at the Dharmasthala Manjunatha temple, alleged that between 1995 and 2014, he was forced under death threats to dispose of hundreds of bodies, many showing signs of sexual violence and brutal murders.
He identified 15 possible burial sites. The first eight locations were identified along the Nethravathi River. Locations 9 to 12 were beside the highway near the river. The 13th was on the road connecting Nethravathi to Aajukuri, and the remaining two, 14 and 15, were in the Kanyadi area near the highway.
The SIT have been conducting exhumation at the sites identified by the complainant. Partial human skeletal remains were found at the sixth burial site on 31 July.
Meanwhile, Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar speaking to the media said, “We are neither on their (Dharmasthala’s) side nor this side. We are on the side of justice. All we are saying is that there should be no politics in matters of religion.”
“Until now, BJP leaders had not said anything about this. Earlier, they used to make vague, indirect remarks. Only after I brought up the issue of a ‘conspiracy’ did they start speaking,” he said.
He further added: “The Dharmasthala family members themselves came and told the Chief Minister that the formation of a SIT (Special Investigation Team) was the right decision. The investigation is ongoing. Whoever is at fault, our government will take action. This has been assured in the Assembly by the Chief Minister, the Home Minister, and also in the CLP (Congress Legislature Party) meeting.”
When asked about Sujatha Bhatt’s statement that Ananya Bhatt is not her daughter, he said: “This is a matter for the Home Minister to look into.”
On being questioned about the meeting with Randeep Surjewala, he responded: “We have to prepare for the upcoming local body elections, don’t we? That is why the meeting was called — to share responsibilities. Once the court directs that elections must be conducted, we cannot ignore it, can we?”
Apart from the main complainant, Sujatha Bhatt, alleged that her daughter, a medical student, had gone missing in 2003 while visiting the Dharmasthala Manjunatha Temple.
However, the SIT, which has been probing the matter, recently raised doubts about the very existence of Sujatha’s daughter, Ananya Bhatt, whose alleged disappearance formed the basis of the sensational charges.
Investigators pressed Sujatha to produce a photograph of her missing daughter.
When she released one, suspicions deepened as inquiries indicated that Sujatha, who had lived in Ripponpete, Shivamogga, with one Prabhakar Baliga, never had children.
Later, another complainant appeared before the SIT and claimed he had witnessed the illegal burial of a teen girl. The individual, identified as Jayant T, appeared before the Beltangady SIT office and submitted a complaint related to a case he had allegedly witnessed.
(Edited by Sumavarsha)
