Media leaves of the police flag in the Dharmasthala skeleton

Mangaluru: In the ongoing investigation of the alleged disposal of human remains near Dharmasthala, the Dakshina Kannada police made sure that the media information represented by the legal team, which represented the complainant's stuff, impair efforts to protect its identity.

In a press release from the Dakshina Kannada police, the police said that the lawyer who represents the witness was submitted to witness protection while the press releases shared sensitive details. Although the lawyer reported that this was carried out on the instructions of the complainant, the police said that the extent of the open information made it impossible to guarantee anonymity and that further examination of the protective application is pending.

The police also cited that according to rule 7 of the 2018 witness protection scheme, protective measures require the witness's consent and cooperation. “Despite the E -Mail Communication on July 10th, no information about the witness was shared,” the explanation said. The deputy SP has submitted a report in which it cannot proceed without this information.

The investigation officers recently received information that a petition in connection with the matter was submitted before the Supreme Court. However, this information was not made aware of the investigative officers by the witness or legal representatives.

“There is confidential intelligence from local sources that indicate that after the exhumation process has been concluded, there is a possibility that the obligation to complete the witness may be speculated. This is the reason for the urgency that is shown in the procedure with the exhumation without following the appropriate examination procedures.

The investigation officers have submitted a report to the Hon'ble Court, which applies for the permission to carry out a brain cardboard, fingerprint and narco analysis test for the witness compensation subject to its consent.

“If the investigative officer determines that the exhumation process is appropriate at a certain stage of the investigation, the procedure is carried out by compliance with the correct legal procedures,” said the police.

The lawyers that represented the complainant expressed themselves strongly and expressed themselves disappointed with the statements of the police and alleged delays. “The complainant was not looking for anonymity to avoid the exam. His decision to publish a reduced complaint was aimed at the awareness and security of the public,” said her explanation.

They also rejected the alleged attempt by the investigative officer to violate the privilege of the lawyer's tenderer by questioning whether the witness had approved the release of the complaint.

The lawyers rejected the claims that the witness was unavailable. “On July 14, the police recorded his explanation in Mangaluru, and his address near Dharmasthala was sent by e -mail on July 13,” they said.

The complainant, who expressed fear for his security, voluntarily handed over human remains on July 11th. Nevertheless, there was no further visit to the site. “He believes that every recovery reduces the risk of his life,” added the explanation and asked the authorities not to treat him as an opponent, but as someone who tries to correct a historical injustice.