Dharmasthala case: Sowjanya’s uncle named in complaint; HC seeks info on burial sites


Daijiworld Media Network – Bengaluru

Bengaluru, Sep 20: As controversy deepens around alleged mass burials in Dharmasthala linked to the long-standing Sowjanya rape and murder case, two significant developments have emerged. A complaint has been filed against the victim’s uncle for allegedly spreading misinformation and fuelling conspiracy theories, while the Karnataka high court has ordered petitioners to independently submit any evidence they claim to hold regarding burial sites.

In a fresh twist to the 2012 Sowjanya case, Sandeep Rai, a resident of Dharmasthala village, has filed a complaint with the Special Investigation Team (SIT) against Vittal Gowda, Sowjanya’s uncle, for allegedly making unsubstantiated claims about human remains being found at Banglegudde, a site currently under investigation.

Rai accused Gowda of deliberately spreading ‘sensational and misleading’ information that, he claimed, threatens to undermine the spiritual sanctity of Shree Kshetra Dharmasthala. “Instead of devotion, social media is now flooded with talk of skeletons, crimes, and conspiracies,” the complaint reads. “The peace and holiness of Dharmasthala is being compromised.”

According to Rai, Gowda participated in two site inspections (mahazar) with the SIT at Banglegudde and later gave an interview to the Kudla Rampage YouTube channel, wherein he claimed that a 45-year-old witness-complainant had contacted him as recently as 2023.

Rai further alleged that Gowda had visited the area earlier, witnessed human remains, and failed to report this to authorities. “He says he recorded videos and even personally brought skulls from the site, yet none of this was shared with the police. Who guided him, and what was his motive?” Rai questioned.

“These actions indicate either involvement in the crimes or participation in a larger conspiracy aimed at discrediting Dharmasthala,” the complaint claims. Rai also requested the SIT to probe Gowda’s links with the complainant and others including Girish Mattannavar, Mahesh Shetty Thimarodi, Jayant T, and the media platform involved.

Meanwhile, the Karnataka High Court has directed two petitioners—Purandara Gowda and Tukaram Gowda—to present any independently obtained information regarding suspected grave sites in Dharmasthala to the court by September 26.

Justice M Nagaprasanna issued the order after hearing arguments from senior counsel Deepak Khosla, who appeared on behalf of the petitioners, and special public prosecutor (SPP) B N Jagadeesh.

Khosla argued that his clients possess knowledge of burial locations beyond the 14 already revealed by the original complainant, a sanitation worker who has since been named an accused. Due to fears of evidence tampering, Khosla said the petitioners refrained from publicly disclosing these sites and were willing to submit the information directly to the court.

In response, SPP Jagadeesh informed the court that 13 out of 14 disclosed sites had already been excavated, and a skull initially believed to be female was recovered—but forensic analysis confirmed it to be male. “The investigation shows the complainant’s statements were misleading,” Jagadeesh said.

Expressing concern over delays in recording the complainant’s statement, the court asked whether there was a conspiracy behind the entire sequence of events. The SPP was instructed to investigate potential ulterior motives and report back.

 

 

 

 

  

Top Stories


Leave a Comment

Title: Dharmasthala case: Sowjanya’s uncle named in complaint; HC seeks info on burial sites



You have 2000 characters left.

Disclaimer:

Please write your correct name and email address. Kindly do not post any personal, abusive, defamatory, infringing, obscene, indecent, discriminatory or unlawful or similar comments. Daijiworld.com will not be responsible for any defamatory message posted under this article.

Please note that sending false messages to insult, defame, intimidate, mislead or deceive people or to intentionally cause public disorder is punishable under law. It is obligatory on Daijiworld to provide the IP address and other details of senders of such comments, to the authority concerned upon request.

Hence, sending offensive comments using daijiworld will be purely at your own risk, and in no way will Daijiworld.com be held responsible.