The witness who alleged that he buried several bodies in Dharmasthala waited by the roadside in the temple town on Wednesday, July 16, claiming that he was ready to point out the burial sites to the police. But after waiting for over an hour without any response from the police, he left.
The man had filed a complaint at the Dharmasthala police station in Dakshina Kannada district through his lawyers on July 3, alleging that he was threatened into burying multiple bodies between 1995 and 2014. He said he was compelled to speak out now due to moral pressure.
On Wednesday, events took a dramatic turn. The witness arrived near one of the alleged burial sites in a car, accompanied by his lawyers.
But after waiting for nearly an hour, they left, with no police presence at the location.
Local media reported that the investigating officer was at the Dharmasthala police station.
Dakshina Kannada SP K Arun later said in a statement that there were concerns the witness might go into hiding after the exhumation, and that the process should not be rushed. This concern was shared with the witness’s lawyer and is under review, he added.
The exhumation, the SP said, would happen at a stage deemed appropriate by the investigating officer and in line with due legal process.
Police and witness’ counsel at loggerheads
Earlier in the day, the police claimed that the witness was inaccessible and that they couldn’t provide protection without knowing his location. But by evening, Dheeraj SJ and Ananya Gowda, lawyers representing the witness, issued a statement accusing the police of delaying the investigation.
“The police appear completely indifferent to the most compelling and irrefutable evidence the witness can provide—namely, the location and recovery of buried bodies. The continued delay is not just inexplicable, it is shocking to the complainant,” they said.
The lawyers urged police to treat the witness “not as an adversary but as a courageous individual seeking to correct a historic wrong”. They added that the witness remained available and willing to assist in locating the remains—"while, as he says, he is still alive".
An FIR was registered by the Dharmasthala police on July 4, and the witness’s statement was recorded before the Principal Civil Judge and First Class Judicial Magistrate in Belthangady on July 11. He had even handed over remains he had exhumed earlier. But since then, the lawyers allege, police have taken no steps to exhume the other bodies.
What the police claim
Dakshina Kannada Superintendent of Police Arun K issued a press release on July 16 afternoon, saying the complainant was not available and the lawyers were uncooperative. He added there would be no mahazar (inquest report) that day.
He also said certain steps under Rule 7 of the Witness Protection Scheme could only be taken with the witness’s cooperation, and that this was conveyed to the lawyers via email on July 10. “However, the lawyers have not shared the witness’s location,” the note said, adding that all communication with the lawyers had happened over email.
The police also said that the DySP had submitted a report saying that, without knowing the witness’s whereabouts, it was impossible to inspect his accommodation or provide protection.
The lawyers countered this, calling the police's claim "demonstrably false". They said the police had recorded the witness’s statement at a specific location for over four hours on July 14 and were informed of his temporary address via email on July 13.
The lawyers also said the witness had named individuals in his statement to the magistrate and feared for his life. “He believes that each skeletal recovery reduces the motive for anyone to silence him. Every recovery improves his chances of survival,” they said.
He had expected the police to take him to the burial sites for the mahazar on July 12, the day after his statement was recorded, the lawyers added. “Yet, as of today, July 16, no such step has been taken.”
Police also claimed the witness’s identity could no longer be protected due to details revealed through press releases and public statements.
In response, the lawyers said it was “highly objectionable” that the investigating officer attempted to breach attorney-client privilege by questioning whether the witness had specifically instructed his lawyers to release redacted documents.
“This constitutes a serious overreach and undermines fundamental legal protections, especially in a case like this,” they said.
Advocates meet CM
A delegation of lawyers led by senior advocates S Balan and CS Dwarakanath met Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on July 16 and urged him to ensure that suitable action is taken in the case.