Mangaluru: In a major development in the Dharmasthala skull case, sources have revealed that Jaynath told investigators that it was Girish Mattannavar who handed over the skull. The Special Investigation Team (SIT), which is probing the controversial case, has intensified questioning of Jaynath and YouTuber Abhishek to trace the origin of the skull.
Dharmasthala Skull Mystery Deepens in SIT Probe
The key question before the SIT is where exactly the skull was found. Earlier, suspicions had arisen that the skull presented before the court was sourced from Timarodi estate and not from the actual crime scene.
During investigations, Jaynath reportedly mentioned Girish Mattannavar’s name, adding a new dimension to the inquiry.
FSL Report Rules Out Dharmasthala Soil Link
Along with the skull, soil samples were also sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to verify their origin. The FSL report confirmed that the soil attached to the skull did not match the soil near Dharmasthala, where the case was originally linked.
This mismatch triggered doubts about the authenticity of the skull’s recovery site.
Chinnayya’s Confession on Skull Origin
Following the FSL findings, SIT officers interrogated Chinnayya, who admitted that the skull had been brought in as part of a conspiracy. He confessed that it was collected from Timarodi rubber estate and later produced in court.
When police visited Timarodi for a spot inspection, Chinnayya pointed out a location within the rubber plantation, claiming that the skull was dug up from there. Soil from this site has now been sent to FSL for testing.
Possible Explosive Twist Ahead
If the FSL confirms that the soil from Timarodi estate matches the soil found on the skull, the case could take a dramatic turn. Investigators may then face a new set of questions:
- Was the skull originally buried in the Timarodi estate?
- If yes, to whom did it belong?
- Or was the skull sourced from another lab or location and planted in the estate to build a case?
Experts Question SIT’s Method
Legal experts have raised concerns about the way the investigation was conducted. They argue that the SIT should have first secured and marked the exact spot where the skull was allegedly found before expanding searches to other areas. Skipping this step, they say, may have compromised critical evidence such as skeletal remains.
The SIT continues to pursue leads, but with conflicting testimonies and forensic mismatches, the Dharmasthala skull case is now heading towards further complexity.
