Sujata Bhat, whose claim about her daughter's disappearance in Dharmasthala fuelled the controversy around the claims on mass burials in the town, has expressed her desire to withdraw her complaint.
Bhat, who was questioned by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the Dharmasthala case for the third consecutive day, on Friday expressed her desire to withdraw the complaint during the interrogation, PTI quoted sources as saying.
Bhat had claimed that her daughter Ananya had disappeared from the Dharmasthala temple premises in 2003.
Her claims came after a former sanitation worker, who said he had worked in the town between 1995 and 2014, had alleged that he was forced to bury numerous bodies during his tenure. He said that the bodies included those of women and minors, some of which also bore signs of sexual assault.
However, investigators on Friday said that Bhat – who earlier publicly withdrew and apologised for the claims regarding her daughter's disappearance – seemed to be under significant pressure and was struggling during questioning.
{{/usCountry}}However, investigators on Friday said that Bhat – who earlier publicly withdrew and apologised for the claims regarding her daughter's disappearance – seemed to be under significant pressure and was struggling during questioning.
{{/usCountry}}The SIT officials said her claims on Friday seemed to be in contradiction to the statements she had made earlier, thus suggesting that she had not been completely truthful and was obstructing the legal process, PTI reported.
During the interrogation on Friday, Sujata allegedly revealed the names of those involved in Ananya's disappearance, contrary to her earlier statement that the incident was a part of a larger conspiracy.
The officials, however, said that the disclosures were being verified, and refused to confirm the details, PTI reported.
The original complainant in the case, 50-year-old CN Chinnaiah, was arrested by the SIT and remanded to a 10-day custody on August 23. Following his arrest, officials said there had been several inconsistencies in the statements and documents provided by the complainant.