NATIONAL: Dharmasthala Scandal: Key Witness Recants
The ongoing investigation into alleged mass burials at Dharmasthala, a prominent pilgrimage site in Karnataka, has encountered significant setbacks.
Recent developments involve the retraction of a pivotal testimony, casting doubt on the veracity of related claims. Authorities continue to probe the matter amid escalating public scrutiny.
Case Origins
Allegations surfaced when a former sanitation worker, Bhima, asserted that hundreds of bodies were interred at religious sites in Dharmasthala.
Excavations at specified locations yielded skeletal remains, prompting the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT). The revelations ignited widespread concern among devotees and residents.
Sujatha Bhatt’s Initial Grievance
Sujatha Bhatt lodged a formal complaint with the Dakshina Kannada police, alleging her daughter, Ananya Bhatt, vanished in 2003 during a visit to Dharmasthala with companions.
She claimed prior reports were dismissed and met with intimidation. This prompted registration of a case, integrated with the broader Dharmasthala inquiry.
Dramatic Retraction
In a recent interview on a YouTube channel, Sujatha Bhatt disavowed her earlier statements, declaring the narrative entirely fabricated.
She admitted to having no daughter named Ananya Bhatt and labeled associated photographs as contrived. This reversal has intensified skepticism surrounding the investigation.
Alleged Motive
Bhatt attributed her actions to pressure from individuals linked to the Dharmasthala case, aimed at resolving a familial property dispute.
She contended that temple authorities had unlawfully appropriated her grandfather’s land without consent. Denying financial incentives, she portrayed the fabrication as a means to negotiate settlement.
Regret and Apology
Expressing remorse, Bhatt acknowledged the gravity of her deception and its impact on public trust.
She extended apologies to Karnataka’s populace and Dharmasthala’s adherents. This disclosure has prompted calls for enhanced verification protocols in witness testimonies.
Parallel Developments: Bhima’s Shift
Concurrently, Bhima, the initial accuser, altered his account, stating he relocated to Tamil Nadu in 2014 and was influenced to submit evidence to SIT officials.
He referenced external suggestions for court petitions and evidence handling. These changes have further complicated the evidentiary landscape.
Investigative Implications
The retractions underscore challenges in corroborating claims amid potential external influences.
Police officials have intensified scrutiny, potentially expanding the probe to include coercion allegations. Stakeholders await forensic analyses and additional witness corroborations to clarify the burial site’s anomalies.
Broader Ramifications
This episode highlights vulnerabilities in high-profile investigations involving sacred sites.
It raises questions about land disputes intersecting with criminal probes. Neutral observers emphasize the necessity for impartial adjudication to preserve institutional integrity.