Dharmasthala Burials: Advocate Alleges Police Coercion Against Complainant

Swift Summary

• Advocate Ananya Gowda accused a Sub-Inspector (SI) from the Special Examination Team (SIT) of coercing her client, a 50-year-old sanitation worker who filed a complaint about burying bodies in Dharmasthala a decade ago, to retract his claim.
• The advocate alleged that SI Manjunath Gowda threatened the complainant with severe consequences, including extended imprisonment and police custody.
• The SI reportedly coerced the complainant to record a retraction on camera and implicate unidentified persons rather of continuing his original statement. These claims were allegedly recorded on the officer’s mobile phone.
• The advocate demanded immediate exclusion or removal of SI Manjunath Gowda from the investigation to ensure an unbiased inquiry.
• SIT has not yet responded to these allegations.
• As part of ongoing investigations, SIT dug up four more sites (numbers 9 to 12) out of the 13 identified by the complainant near Dharmasthala’s bathing ghat on August 2, 2025.
• Among eight previously dug sites, skeletal remains were not found in seven. Though, approximately 15 bones were seized from site number six during earlier digs.
• Digging is being conducted under supervision by forensic experts and officials such as Assistant commissioner Stella Varghese.

indian Opinion Analysis

The allegations against Sub-Inspector manjunath Gowda raise critical concerns regarding ethical practices within investigative teams assigned sensitive cases. Coercion could jeopardize both public confidence in law enforcement agencies and hinder justice for serious complaints involving human remains-a situation that necessitates thorough impartiality. Removing individuals like Mr. Gowda from investigations is basic if these claims are substantiated; otherwise, trust issues stemming from perceived bias could derail progress.

The ongoing excavation efforts present another dimension worth noting: while bones have been found at one site so far among those identified by the complainant, thier forensic analysis will be crucial in determining weather they validate his accusations or point towards other explanations for burial activities around Dharmasthala’s bathing ghat.

This case highlights institutional accountability as essential for uncovering past crimes while protecting whistleblowers who risk safety when stepping forward with serious claims-an enduring aspect requiring systemic safeguards across India’s judicial framework.

Read More: Source