<p>Mangaluru: The Special Investigation Team (SIT) which arrested complainant witness in Dharmasthala mass burial case, produced him before JMFC court in Belthangady, which in turn remanded him in 12 days of SIT custody. </p><p>The complainant witness, who had earlier claimed that he had exhumed a body that he himself had buried, had produced a skull said to be from that body. However, during interrogation, he evaded giving the SIT clear details about where exactly he had exhumed it from. </p><p>During questioning on Friday, the complainant witness later admitted that the skull he produced did not belong to the body he had buried. Following this revelation, SIT officials took him into custody. Unlike in the past, when he was allowed to leave with his legal team after questioning, the officials kept him under their custody on Friday night. </p><p>The SIT arrested him, took him for a medical examination on Saturday morning, and then produced before Additional Judge Vijayendra TH at the Belthangady JMFC Court.</p><p>After the court remanded him in SIT custody, the SIT then escorted him back to their Belthangady office, accompanied by SPs Jitendra Kumar Dayama and CA Simon. </p>.Dharmasthala case: Police summon YouTuber MD Sameer after Mangaluru court grants anticipatory bail.<p>An SIT source said, "The complainant witness did not provide accurate information about the skull he produced. He hesitated to show the location. Upon further questioning, he admitted it was not the skull of the body he had buried. We requested hid custody to investigate further, and the court has granted us 12 days, until September 3. We will investigate where he obtained the skull, its background, and related details.”</p><p>“At present, we have taken him into custody only to gather more information about the skull he produced. Investigations related to the earlier exhumation of sites shown by him will also continue,” sources added. </p><p>SIT sources said, "The protection granted to complainant witness under the Witness Protection Act is still in force. Therefore, his identity cannot be disclosed." </p><p>Earlier, the SIT had conducted exhumation in 17 out of 18 sites in Dharmasthala village, which the complainant witness had pointed out. Human remains were traced in two locations. The remains have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for analysis and the report is awaited. </p><p>The SIT has so far questioned former panchayat staff of Dharmasthala, sanitation workers alleged to have assisted the complainant witness in disposing of bodies, and doctors who had previously conducted post mortem on bodies found in Dharmasthala village.</p>
<p>Mangaluru: The Special Investigation Team (SIT) which arrested complainant witness in Dharmasthala mass burial case, produced him before JMFC court in Belthangady, which in turn remanded him in 12 days of SIT custody. </p><p>The complainant witness, who had earlier claimed that he had exhumed a body that he himself had buried, had produced a skull said to be from that body. However, during interrogation, he evaded giving the SIT clear details about where exactly he had exhumed it from. </p><p>During questioning on Friday, the complainant witness later admitted that the skull he produced did not belong to the body he had buried. Following this revelation, SIT officials took him into custody. Unlike in the past, when he was allowed to leave with his legal team after questioning, the officials kept him under their custody on Friday night. </p><p>The SIT arrested him, took him for a medical examination on Saturday morning, and then produced before Additional Judge Vijayendra TH at the Belthangady JMFC Court.</p><p>After the court remanded him in SIT custody, the SIT then escorted him back to their Belthangady office, accompanied by SPs Jitendra Kumar Dayama and CA Simon. </p>.Dharmasthala case: Police summon YouTuber MD Sameer after Mangaluru court grants anticipatory bail.<p>An SIT source said, "The complainant witness did not provide accurate information about the skull he produced. He hesitated to show the location. Upon further questioning, he admitted it was not the skull of the body he had buried. We requested hid custody to investigate further, and the court has granted us 12 days, until September 3. We will investigate where he obtained the skull, its background, and related details.”</p><p>“At present, we have taken him into custody only to gather more information about the skull he produced. Investigations related to the earlier exhumation of sites shown by him will also continue,” sources added. </p><p>SIT sources said, "The protection granted to complainant witness under the Witness Protection Act is still in force. Therefore, his identity cannot be disclosed." </p><p>Earlier, the SIT had conducted exhumation in 17 out of 18 sites in Dharmasthala village, which the complainant witness had pointed out. Human remains were traced in two locations. The remains have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for analysis and the report is awaited. </p><p>The SIT has so far questioned former panchayat staff of Dharmasthala, sanitation workers alleged to have assisted the complainant witness in disposing of bodies, and doctors who had previously conducted post mortem on bodies found in Dharmasthala village.</p>