Dharmasthala: It’s a case of perjury, not conspiracy, say SIT sources

Bengaluru

A highly placed source in the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the mass burial case said C. N. Chinnayya’s U-turn amounts to perjury and not conspiracy. The SIT has never stated — not even before the High Court (HC) — that the investigation has found evidence of conspiracy.

Chinnayya, who became an accused in the case after initially filing a complaint at the Dharmasthala police station, had given a statement before the magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in Belthangady court. He was also granted witness protection under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. In his first statement, he alleged that he was forced to bury dead bodies illegally.

The state government set up the SIT on July 19 to probe the allegations. The team exhumed at least 15 spots and recovered two skeletal remains, both identified as male. Later, Chinnayya claimed that the skull he had presented as evidence in court was given to him by Vittal Gowda and others, and that he had buried bodies legally. Following this volte-face, the SIT charged him under sections related to perjury and forgery.

It is noteworthy that during his first statement, recorded under oath, Chinnayya had categorically said he was neither forced nor influenced by anyone. Retracting a Section 183 statement is not easy — the court must be convinced that it was originally made under someone’s influence. This is not child’s play.

Chinnayya is now believed to be recording another Section 183 statement, which may counter his earlier one. The process began on September 23, continued on September 25, and is set to resume on September 27.

SIT sources reiterated that the case is being treated strictly as perjury, not conspiracy. Responding to questions about the SIT’s conduct during the High Court hearing of a writ of mandamus in Court Hall 14, the source said: “The SIT has never said we found evidence of conspiracy. When the judge asked about conspiracy, the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), B. N. Jagadish, replied that ‘it is yet to be unearthed.’ The SPP’s use of the word ‘conspiracy’ may have stemmed from general allegations of conspiracy in the media,” the source clarified.

The source also pointed out that the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) earlier dismissed by the Supreme Court (SC) has no bearing on the ongoing probe. “It was rejected not on merit, but simply because due process of law had not been followed. At that time, the petitioner had not filed a complaint at the jurisdictional police station. Once that was done, due process was in place. And as for the PIL itself — it is a public document. One cannot hide a public document as is being reported by some news channels,” the source said.