Last Updated:
By naming the complainant and his allies, the SIT is effectively suggesting that the claims of mass burial may have been fabricated or maliciously exaggerated for ulterior motives
The controversy began when allegations surfaced that several bodies had been unlawfully disposed of at a remote location in Belthangady, potentially linked to illegal activities or extrajudicial actions. File image
The high-stakes investigation into the alleged mass burial case in BelthangadyKarnataka, has taken a dramatic turn, with the Special Investigation Team (SIT) filing a report that names the original witness-complainant and five other individuals as accused. The report was submitted to a local Belthangady court under Section 215 of the Bharatiya citizens Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which pertains to offences related to evidence.
The witness-complainant, a 45-year-old local resident whose initial testimony brought the alleged mass burial site to light, is now among the six persons facing formal charges. The other five named accused are identified as Mahesh Shetty TimarodiGirish Mattannavar, Vitthal Gowda, Jayant T, and Sujatha Gowda. These individuals, many of whom are believed to be local activists or involved in public interest litigation, had been instrumental in campaigning for the investigation into the suspected mass graves.
The filing of the report under Section 215 BNSS indicates that the SIT has reason to believe these individuals may have been involved in giving false information, concealing evidence, or otherwise attempting to mislead the investigation concerning the alleged offences. This unexpected development suggests a critical shift in the SIT’s findings, moving the focus away from the original suspected perpetrators and towards the motivations and actions of those who raised the alarm.
The controversy began when allegations surfaced that several bodies had been unlawfully disposed of at a remote location in Belthangadypotentially linked to illegal activities or extrajudicial actions. The subsequent police investigation, eventually handed over to the SIT, involved extensive excavation and forensic analysis.
By naming the complainant and his allies, the SIT is effectively suggesting that the claims of a mass burial may have been fabricated or maliciously exaggerated for ulterior motives. This twist places a significant burden on the accused to demonstrate the veracity of their original claims, while the SIT is now expected to detail the evidence that led them to charge the very individuals who initiated the case. The Belthangady court is now tasked with reviewing the BNSS report to decide on the further course of action against the accused.
The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, the Desk d…Read More
The News Desk is a team of passionate editors and writers who break and analyse the most important events unfolding in India and abroad. From live updates to exclusive reports to in-depth explainers, the Desk d… Read More
November 21, 2025, 06:08 IST
Read More
Source link
[ad_3]
