HC surprised over Magistrate not recording Chinnayya’s statement in Dharmasthala case

Bengaluru 

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while hearing the writ of mandamus in the Dharmasthala mass burial case on Thursday, questioned why the Magistrate had not recorded the statement of accused Chinnayya. “It is surprising why the Magistrate has not recorded the statement; be that as it may,” the judge remarked, while directing the petitioners to file any independent information they possess on the alleged illegal burials at the next hearing on September 26.

The petitioners, Purandara Gowda and Tukaram Gowda, had sought the High Court’s direction to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to include them as witnesses to identify illegal burial sites in Dharmasthala panchayat. In the first hearing on September 15, the HC issued notice to the SIT, asking why the petitioners had not been considered. The petitioners were represented by advocate Deepak Khosla.

Special Public Prosecutor B. N. Jagadish, representing the SIT, responding to the notice, said: “The petitioners’ representation stated that they learnt about the spots from Chinnayya. But since Chinnayya, the original complainant, was found lying during the investigation—and of the 13 sites he identified, skeletal remains were found only in one—the representation was not considered. Moreover, skeletal remains found at the sixth site belonged to a male, and remains found on the surface of site 11A were not of any woman. The skull handed over to Chinnayya by some persons also turned out to be male, according to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.” Jagadish further noted that although a fresh statement from Chinnayya was scheduled to be recorded on Thursday, it was not done before the Belthangady Magistrate.

Advocate Khosla argued that the petitioners had indeed collected information from Chinnayya and had verified it by personally visiting the sites, which substantiated his claims. When the judge asked whether the petitioners had any independent information, Khosla replied that they did, and urged the SIT to at least inspect the sites they had identified before the next hearing.

Justice Nagaprasanna expressing shock said “why Chinnayya’s statement was not recorded.” Nagaprasanna issued directions to the petitioners to submit independent information they possess before the court during the next hearing in the court. He also mentioned while issuing the direction: “Although Chinnayya’s statement was to be recorded today (Thursday), it was not done. It is surprising why the Magistrate has not recorded the statement, be that as it may.”