Delay in exhumation process by police inexplicable: Lawyers of complainant in Dharmasthala case
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.
Jadeja, Washington fifties take India to 322/4 at tea
Manchester, Jul 27 (PTI): Washington Sundar and Ravindra Jadeja extended India’s fight on day five of the fourth Test with determined half-centuries, giving the visitors a slender 11-run lead at tea time but more importantly raising visions of a morale boosting draw.
Both Jadeja (53 batting off 102) and Washington (58 batting off 139) batted with a strong purpose to save the game, frustrating a worn out England attack.
At tea, India were 322 for four after collecting 99 runs from a wicketless afternoon session.
Ben Stokes, who looked lethal in his eight over spell in the morning, could not keep up the intensity in the three overs he bowled in the second session.
In a 15-run over from Stokes, Washington pulled the England captain for a six and four to bring up his fifty before Jadeja employed the cut to complete his fifth half-century in six innings.
With not much batting to come and Rishabh Pant injured, it remains to be seen if India can pull off a draw from here.
What made England’s life difficult is that left-arm spinner Liam Dawson (0/70 in 39 overs) was not able to challenge the Indian left-handers enough while Jofra Archer too get could not get a breakthrough post lunch.
The second new ball is now 38 overs old, making batting easier.
In the morning session, Shubman Gill completed a gutsy hundred after Stokes battled through pain to dismiss a well set K L Rahul, leaving India at 223 for four at lunch.
Resuming the day at 174 for two with a deficit of 137, India remained on course to draw the game courtesy a fighting effort from Gill, who brought up his fourth century of the series. The Indian captain fell at the stroke of lunch with the visitors still trailing England by 88 runs.
Considering India’s backs against the walls and series on the line, this could be Gill’s most defining century if India managed to save the match and keep the series alive.
Expecting the ball to come back in, Gill felt for the one from Jofra Archer that shaped away, getting a faint outside edge.
The 188-run marathon stand between Gill and Rahul (90 off 230) was finally broken when the latter was trapped in front by Stokes with a ball that kept a tad low from length.
Soon after, Stokes got one jump to sharply from a similar length that foxed Rahul, leaving the Indian skipper in a lot of pain.
The rising ball first crashed into Gill’s right thumb before taking a piece of his
helmet.
It was remarkable that Stokes, who was not fit enough to bowl on day four, managed an eight-over spell on day five despite discomfort in his right shoulder and hamstring. Like at Lord’s, he did not care much about his injury prone body to help the team’s cause.
The new ball was taken after the 80th over and resulted in the wicket of Gill. Jadeja too would have be gone first ball but Joe Root could not hold on to a tough chance at first slip off Archer.
Brief scores:
India: 358 and 322/4 in 118 overs (KL Rahul 90, Shubman Gill 103, Ravindra Jadeja 53 batting, Washington Sundar 57 batting; Chris Woakes 2/57)
England 1st innings: 669 all out in 157.1 overs (Joe Root 150, Ben Stokes 141, Ben Duckett 94, Zak Crawley 84; Ravindra Jadeja 4/143).
