Dharmasthala Mass Burial Case: Complainant Arrested, SIT Takes Custody

The dramatic turn in Karnataka’s most sensational investigation

In a stunning twist to the Dharmasthala mass burial case, the very man who first raised explosive allegations has now been arrested. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) took the complainant, identified as C. N. Chinnayya from Mandya, into custody after accusing him of perjury and fabricating evidence. He has been remanded to 10 days of police custody, sending shockwaves through Karnataka’s political and religious circles.

What was the Dharmasthala mass burial case?

The controversy began earlier this year when a masked whistleblower alleged that, during his years as a sanitation worker at the famous Dharmasthala temple (1995–2014), he had been forced to bury multiple bodies of women and minors. Some of the remains, he claimed, showed signs of sexual assault and violence.

The allegations were grave: secret burials, possible criminal cover-ups, and institutional silence. They triggered immediate public outrage and compelled the government to form a Special Investigation Team.

What did the SIT uncover during excavations?

To verify the claims, the SIT conducted excavations at 13 locations pointed out by the complainant.

• Bones and skull fragments were discovered in only two sites.
• Nine excavation spots yielded no remains at all.
• Forensic experts highlighted that soil conditions, rain, and laterite erosion could degrade biological material, but they also noted that several claimed sites showed no evidence of disturbance consistent with burial activity.

This created a puzzle: were the whistleblower’s claims genuine but impossible to prove, or were they entirely fabricated?

Why was the complainant arrested?

On August 23, the SIT arrested the complainant after finding serious inconsistencies in his testimony and documents. His real identity—previously concealed behind a mask—was confirmed through interrogation and medical examination.

According to investigators:

• He allegedly altered statements multiple times.
• Some of his claims were found to be factually impossible when cross-verified with records.
• Preliminary questioning suggested he may have been influenced by external groups to concoct a story aimed at damaging reputations.

The SIT therefore charged him with perjury, misleading the investigation, and wasting public resources.

The political and social fallout

The arrest has deepened divides in Karnataka’s public discourse.

• Supporters of the Dharmasthala temple say the case is proof of a malicious conspiracy to tarnish an age-old institution.
• Skeptics and activists caution that the investigation should not be prematurely closed, as forensic limitations don’t automatically disprove foul play.
• The Home Minister of Karnataka has emphasized that “no conclusion can be drawn until the SIT completes its work.”

Meanwhile, the local community in Dharmasthala is caught between relief that their temple’s reputation may be vindicated, and unease that such disturbing allegations surfaced in the first place.

What happens next?

The SIT will use the 10-day custody to press further:

• Forensic reassessment: The bones and soil samples already recovered will undergo more advanced scientific testing to determine their age and possible cause of death.
• Tracing influences: Investigators will probe whether political or social groups manipulated the complainant into staging the mass burial narrative.
• Cross-examinations: Other individuals connected to the temple, excavation sites, and the complainant’s past will be questioned.

The court has also stressed the need for transparent proceedings to maintain public trust.

The larger lesson

This case is no longer just about Dharmasthala—it’s about how societies handle grave allegations, whistleblower protection, and accountability.

On one hand, genuine whistleblowers are critical in exposing systemic abuse. On the other, false testimonies can erode trust, waste public resources, and unfairly tarnish reputations. The Dharmasthala saga has shown both sides of that coin in quick succession.

As Karnataka watches, the outcome of the SIT’s probe will decide whether this was a moment of long-suppressed truth—or a cautionary tale of fabrication and fallout.