<p>Mangaluru: The Special Investigation Team (SIT) found no human remains during exhuming work at the 11th and 12th spots identified by the complainant witness in the forest area beside the state highway near the Nethravathi bathing ghat in Dharmasthala police station limits on Tuesday. </p><p>Meanwhile, in another development, Karnataka state DGP & IGP M A Saleem has ordered to hand over a case pertaining to Unnatural Death Report (UDR) registered at Dharmasthala police station, following the tracing of skeletal remains on July 31 and also the complaint filed by Jayant T, a resident of Ichlampady in Kadaba taluk on alleging the suspicious death of a girl, aged around 13 to 15 years and burying her body without postmortem, to the SIT to probe, said DK SP Dr Arun K.</p><p>Following the tracing of skeletal remains in the sixth site identified by the complainant witness in mass burial case in Dharmasthala, the Dharmasthala police had registered a UDR on August 1 under section 174 (3) & (VI) of CrPC. Further, Jayant had submitted a complaint to Dharmasthala police on August 4. The complaint has been handed over to the SIT to probe, said the SP.</p><p>Tuesday's location for exhuming process were situated about 20 metres inside the forest. To prevent the search visuals from being visible to the public, a green shade net was put up along the roadside. According to SIT sources, "No evidence of buried bodies was found at either of these two locations."</p>.Dharmasthala mass burial case: FSL takes over 3 months to submit report if DNA testing is involved, say experts.<p>Puttur AC Stella Varghese, SIT SP Jitendra Kumar and Dayama, complainant witness were present at the spot. </p><p>"The remains traced in the forest on Monday appear, at first glance, to belong to one individual. Whether the remains are of a male or a female will only be determined after a detailed forensic examination," said SIT sources. </p><p>"All spots identified by the complainant-witness will be searched. Whatever it is and whichever areas he shows, everything will be exhumed by the SIT. DGP has said that they will work till the last spot he shows," said sources in SIT. </p><p>The complainant witness had earlier identified 13 specific spots. Search operations had been carried out at 12 of those locations. The skeletal remains of a man was found at the sixth location on July 31. The skeletal remains were found on the surface of the ground about 100 meters away from the 11th site shown by the complainant witness on Monday. </p><p> <strong>Advocate’s claim</strong></p><p>In a statement, Advocate Manjunath N has claimed that at least three human remains were discovered in the site, shown by complainant witness, situated 100 metres away from 11th site in the forest area on Monday.</p><p>“One of them was of a woman, it is learnt. A woman's saree was also found at the same location. It is said that Monday's exhumation was successful because the SIT allowed the complainant witness to take them to a location adjacent to area number 11, instead of asking him to limit himself only to area number 11 that he had initially shown.”</p>
<p>Mangaluru: The Special Investigation Team (SIT) found no human remains during exhuming work at the 11th and 12th spots identified by the complainant witness in the forest area beside the state highway near the Nethravathi bathing ghat in Dharmasthala police station limits on Tuesday. </p><p>Meanwhile, in another development, Karnataka state DGP & IGP M A Saleem has ordered to hand over a case pertaining to Unnatural Death Report (UDR) registered at Dharmasthala police station, following the tracing of skeletal remains on July 31 and also the complaint filed by Jayant T, a resident of Ichlampady in Kadaba taluk on alleging the suspicious death of a girl, aged around 13 to 15 years and burying her body without postmortem, to the SIT to probe, said DK SP Dr Arun K.</p><p>Following the tracing of skeletal remains in the sixth site identified by the complainant witness in mass burial case in Dharmasthala, the Dharmasthala police had registered a UDR on August 1 under section 174 (3) & (VI) of CrPC. Further, Jayant had submitted a complaint to Dharmasthala police on August 4. The complaint has been handed over to the SIT to probe, said the SP.</p><p>Tuesday's location for exhuming process were situated about 20 metres inside the forest. To prevent the search visuals from being visible to the public, a green shade net was put up along the roadside. According to SIT sources, "No evidence of buried bodies was found at either of these two locations."</p>.Dharmasthala mass burial case: FSL takes over 3 months to submit report if DNA testing is involved, say experts.<p>Puttur AC Stella Varghese, SIT SP Jitendra Kumar and Dayama, complainant witness were present at the spot. </p><p>"The remains traced in the forest on Monday appear, at first glance, to belong to one individual. Whether the remains are of a male or a female will only be determined after a detailed forensic examination," said SIT sources. </p><p>"All spots identified by the complainant-witness will be searched. Whatever it is and whichever areas he shows, everything will be exhumed by the SIT. DGP has said that they will work till the last spot he shows," said sources in SIT. </p><p>The complainant witness had earlier identified 13 specific spots. Search operations had been carried out at 12 of those locations. The skeletal remains of a man was found at the sixth location on July 31. The skeletal remains were found on the surface of the ground about 100 meters away from the 11th site shown by the complainant witness on Monday. </p><p> <strong>Advocate’s claim</strong></p><p>In a statement, Advocate Manjunath N has claimed that at least three human remains were discovered in the site, shown by complainant witness, situated 100 metres away from 11th site in the forest area on Monday.</p><p>“One of them was of a woman, it is learnt. A woman's saree was also found at the same location. It is said that Monday's exhumation was successful because the SIT allowed the complainant witness to take them to a location adjacent to area number 11, instead of asking him to limit himself only to area number 11 that he had initially shown.”</p>