Karnataka HC 
Karnataka

Dharmasthala case: Petitioners must furnish proof beyond Chinnaiah’s claims, Karnataka HC

The plea was filed by Sowjanya’s uncles Purandara Gowda and Tukaram Gowda, who claimed that complainant Chinnaiah had given them information about more sites where bodies were buried.

Written by : TNM Staff

Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.

The Karnataka High court on Thursday, September 18 adjourned the hearing of a petition seeking directions to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to inspect and excavate alleged burial sites in Dharmasthala till September 26.

The plea was filed by Sowjanya’s uncles Purandara Gowda and Tukaram Gowda, who claimed that complainant Chinnaiah had given them information about more sites where bodies were buried.

During the hearing, Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) BN Jagadeesha informed the court that Chinnaiah, now arraigned as an accused, was arrested on August 23 for providing false information on alleged mass burials of sexual assault victims. “The allegation of mass burial appears to be a conspiracy,” the SPP said, adding that investigations were still underway.

Chinnaiah had earlier claimed that he was forced to bury bodies of several women and children who appeared to be sexually assaulted in and around Dharmasthala. He had also claimed that he had buried bodies of poor men. 

Jagadeesha told the court that forensic reports showed skeletal remains and a skull recovered from excavated sites were of males, contradicting Chinnaiah’s claims. He further submitted that Chinnaiah had admitted to working as a sanitary worker in Dharmasthala until 2014 and that bodies buried during that time had already undergone police and medical scrutiny. His fresh statement is to be recorded before a Magistrate.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the matter would stand differently if the petitioners had independent information unrelated to Chinnaiah’s statements. Senior advocate Deepak Khosla, appearing for the petitioners, said they had additional independent inputs and sought time to submit them.

The court said that the SIT cannot be compelled to act on such representations unless it is satisfied with the evidence, warning that indiscriminate directions could open a “Pandora’s box.” The matter was then adjourned to September 26.