Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
In the wake of an allegation that the bodies of many women who were raped and murdered were buried in Karnataka’s Dharmasthala, Supreme Court advocate A Velan has issued a statement saying that the recovery of skeletal remains is both urgent and lawful. While he is not representing the complainant, Velan said he was making the statement in public interest to help the media and public understand how the criminal justice system operates in such extraordinary circumstances.
“Once word spreads, evidence can be tampered with or removed. Forensic examination becomes harder with each passing day,” said Velan, in a public statement issued on Monday, July 7.
Advocate Velan had represented YouTuber Sameer MD in a Karnataka High Court case seeking to quash an FIR registered against him. The FIR was filed following a video by Sameer on the rape and murder of Sowjanya. Dharmasthala officials had approached the court and the video was taken down in March due to a Bengaluru court order.
The statement comes after a Dalit man – who said he worked as a sanitation worker at the Dharmasthala temple between 1995 and 2014 – alleged that he was forced to bury victims of rape and murder. In a complaint filed through his lawyers at the Dharmasthala police station on July 3, based on which an FIR was registered, he alleged that he was forced to dispose of multiple bodies, including those of women and minors, under threat of death. The Dakshina Kannada police have registered a case under Section 211(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The man has chosen to remain anonymous and has sought police protection under Karnataka’s Witness Protection Scheme. He said he would cooperate with the investigation and name those involved only after receiving protection for himself and his family. As per the law, a district-level committee led by the Principal District Judge will assess the threat and decide on protective measures, which may include relocation, identity change, or police escorts.
Advocate Velan said that when a First Information Report (FIR) is registered based on allegations of grave crimes such as rape and murder, the police are empowered under Section 156 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, (Sec 175 of BNSS) to begin a full investigation without delay.
“This is not a limited power; it is comprehensive,” he said, adding that it includes power for the authority to visit places connected to the crime, recover and preserve evidence, and document all findings in accordance with the law. He asserted that such action is not just legally valid but mandatory.
Velan also said that the whistleblower giving a statement to a judicial magistrate under Section 164 (Sec 183 of BNSS) will bolster the case.
“There appears to be confusion about when a witness statement under Section 164 CrPC (before a Magistrate) is required,” Velan said. “Section 164 is designed to protect witnesses and ensure their statements are voluntary. It is not a precondition for police investigation. It is meant to strengthen the prosecution case, not delay evidence collection.”
He compared it to a scenario where the police receive a report of a dead body in a well. “They don’t wait for a Section 164 statement before retrieving it. The same logic applies here.”
On the legality of the recoveries being conducted, Velan said that the law permits and recognises voluntary disclosures made by a person, whether accused or witness, who offers to show where evidence is located. In this case, he said, the complainant has approached the police on his own, identified specific burial sites, and offered skeletal remains as proof.
“Established Supreme Court precedents have repeatedly held that police cannot be handicapped in conducting investigations. Delaying evidence collection when specific information is available would be dereliction of duty,” he said.
Velan said that certain safeguards have to be followed in any investigation, including the preparation of panchnamas at each site, presence of independent witnesses, complete videography, maintenance of a proper chain of custody for recovered items, and use of forensic protocols in handling skeletal remains. “Imagine if the police said, ‘We know where murder victims are buried, but we’ll wait weeks for procedural formalities before recovering them.’ The public outrage would be justified,” he said. “The families of potential victims deserve swift action.”
Responding to concerns about the safety of the complainant, Velan said that such concerns were valid, but delaying the investigation would not offer better protection. “Quick evidence collection actually protects him by validating his claims,” he noted, adding that witness protection measures can continue simultaneously.
Velan described the allegations as involving “systematic murder of society’s most vulnerable,” including the sexual assault and killing of women and children, and the concealment of these crimes over decades. He argued that such crimes demand swift and decisive legal action.
“Our criminal justice system, despite its challenges, has the tools and framework to handle even the most complex cases,” he wrote. “Recovery of the skeletal remains should proceed without any delay. The police ought not to wait for a statement before the Magistrate under Section 164. Justice delayed is justice denied. In this case, every recovered remains represents a family’s chance for closure, and every day matters.”