Dharmasthala case: Court may pronounce its decision on SIT’s report on January 3, 2026

The Belthangady court in Dakshina Kannada on Monday further adjourned to January 3, 2026, for pronouncing its decision on taking cognisance of the report of Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the Dharmasthala case. This is the second time the court is adjourning the case.

After arresting Chinnaiah on August 23 for giving false complaint and giving false statement before the court regarding mass burial of bodies in Dharmasthala village, the SIT found that Chinniah did it under pressure from activists Mahesh Shetty Thimarody, Girish Mattennavar, T. Jayanth and Vittala Gowda.

Then the SIT filed 3,900-page report under Section 215 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita before the court against Chinnaiah, Thimarody, Mattennavar, Jayanth, Gowda, and Sujatha Bhat for perjury and other offences.

They were accused for offences under Sections 227 (giving false evidence), 228 (fabricating false evidence), 229, 230 (giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence), 231 giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life), 233 (using evidence known to be false), 236 (false statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence), 240 (giving false information with respect to an offence), 248 (false charge of offence made with intent to injure) and 336 (forgery) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Earlier, Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, T. H. Vijayendra heard Prosecutor Divyaraj Hegde and posted the matter for pronouncing its decision to December 26 and then to December 29. On Monday, the Magistrate further adjourned the matter to January 3.

Meanwhile, the Magistrate rejected the applications by Mattennavar and Thimarody’s aide Mohan Shetty for releasing their mobile phone and laptop respectively, which were seized by the SIT. In his objection, Mr. Hegde said Mattennavar’s mobile phone and Shetty’s laptop were material evidences of the case. There were chances of tampering with the objects if they were released, the prosecutor stated.