Lawyers slam SP’s remarks on Dharmasthala Mass Burial case, accuse cops of delaying action
Mangaluru: Lawyers representing the key witness in the Dharmasthala mass burial case have criticised the public statement made by Superintendent of Police (SP) Dr Arun K on Wednesday, calling it misleading and dismissive of the complainant’s efforts to bring a dark chapter of history to light.
In a detailed statement issued on behalf of the complainant, advocates Dheeraj S J and Ananya Gowda expressed concern over what they called a “complete misrepresentation” of facts by the district police and said the SP’s comments fail to acknowledge the complainant’s intent, cooperation and vulnerability.
The lawyers pointed out that contrary to what the police narrative implies, the complainant did not approach the authorities initially. Instead, driven by conscience and a fear of divine justice, he came forward on his own and sought legal counsel to confess about the mass burials. The lawyers clarified that there was no active investigation or police interest in these alleged crimes until the complainant initiated contact.
They accused the police of ignoring this crucial background in their public statements, which they said gives a wrong impression to the public.
Responding to the SP’s claim that the release of information to the public compromises witness protection, the lawyers said the complainant never tried to hide his identity to avoid scrutiny. Rather, the decision to share a redacted version of the complaint and FIR through lawyers was taken in good faith to ensure transparency while ensuring the witness's safety.
“The suggestion that the police are now free from their duty to protect him because certain details have been shared is completely wrong,” the lawyers said, adding that this interpretation goes against the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
The lawyers also accused the investigating officer of attempting to violate attorney-client privilege by questioning whether the release of the complaint and FIR had the witness’s approval. They called this move a serious legal overreach, adding that it threatens fundamental legal protections available to every citizen.
They questioned the police’s discomfort with media coverage around the issue and said such behaviour creates a chilling effect on people willing to come forward with sensitive information.
Refuting the SP’s claim that the witness’s location is unknown, the lawyers said this was factually incorrect. According to them, on July 14, police officers spent more than four hours recording the complainant’s statement at an undisclosed location. Moreover, on July 13, his temporary address had been formally shared with the police over email.
“The suggestion that they are unaware of his whereabouts is simply not true. The lapse, if any, is from their side,” the lawyers added.
One of the strongest points raised in the statement was about the police's failure to act after receiving clear evidence. The complainant, in his official 164 statement (Section 183 of BNSS) recorded before a magistrate on July 11, had voluntarily handed over human remains from a burial site to the police and forensic team. This was done late in the night and took several hours of coordination.
The complainant, the lawyers said, had expected that the next day the police would accompany him back to the site for a formal inspection and evidence collection. However, no such follow-up has happened even as of July 16.
They called the delay “shocking” and said it indicated a lack of seriousness from the authorities, despite the presence of irrefutable evidence and the witness’s full cooperation.
The lawyers also revealed that the complainant fears for his life and believes that each body he helps recover reduces the motive to eliminate him. “He is not trying to run away. He wants these remains exhumed while he is still alive,” they said, urging the police to act urgently.
Wrapping up their statement, the lawyers made it clear that their client is not trying to create trouble but attempting to expose a brutal historical injustice. They urged the authorities to recognise the courage it takes to do so and not treat the complainant as an adversary.
“The complainant remains available, willing, and committed to assist the investigation,” they said, calling on the police to perform their duties responsibly and without delay.
The statement was signed by Advocates Dheeraj S J and Ananya Gowda, who have now taken charge of the case from their colleagues Ojaswi Gowda and Sachin Deshpande.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
If you have a conscience, apologize to the people: R Ashoka slams Yathindra over Nalwadi comparison
Bengaluru: Leader of the Opposition R. Ashoka launched a scathing attack on MLC Dr. Yathindra, demanding that he retract his controversial statement comparing Chief Minister Siddaramaiah to the late Maharaja Nalwadi Krishnaraja Wadiyar. Ashoka urged Yathindra to apologize to the people of Karnataka if he had even a shred of conscience and any respect for the Mysuru royal lineage.
In a strongly worded social media post on Sunday, Ashoka stated, “Comparing Siddaramaiah to Nalwadi Krishnaraja Wadiyar is nothing short of absurd. Where is Nalwadi, who was bestowed the title of ‘Rajarshi’ by Mahatma Gandhi himself, and where is Siddaramaiah, who has stooped to being a puppet in the hands of fake Gandhis for the sake of power?”
He continued his critique by contrasting the enduring legacy of Nalwadi, remembered fondly by Kannadigas for his people-centric development, with what he termed as Siddaramaiah’s failure to manage Karnataka’s economy, burdening every household with debt.
Ashoka highlighted several stark differences, while Nalwadi built Mysore University over a century ago, Siddaramaiah is shutting down nine universities due to lack of funds. Nalwadi famously sold his family’s gold to build the KRS dam, whereas Siddaramaiah is accused of grabbing 14 sites meant for the public. Nalwadi established Bhadravati Iron & Steel Plant, Sandalwood Soap Factory, and Mysore Paper Mills. In contrast, Ashoka claimed Siddaramaiah's governance drove away industries, investors, and entrepreneurs. Nalwadi pioneered reservations for the backward classes long before it became mainstream. Siddaramaiah, Ashoka alleged, is reducing social justice to a gimmick by sticking labels on doors in the name of surveys.
While acknowledging Yathindra’s emotional attachment to his father, Ashoka emphasized that comparing Siddaramaiah to a visionary like Nalwadi was “laughable, baseless, and a gross insult” to the late king.
In his concluding remarks, Ashoka slammed the government for ignoring farmers’ needs despite an early monsoon. He accused the administration of being caught up in internal power struggles and negligence, forcing farmers into despair. “This government will not be spared from the curse of the farmers,” he warned.
