Justice on hold: how intimidation threatens truth in Soujanya case

 

When the long shadow of the Soujanya case continues to darken the conscience of Karnataka, one episode has become central to the debate — the volte-face of Chinnaya, once known as “Bhima,” a man who had earlier vowed to reveal the truth about multiple rapes and murders in Dharmasthala by showing the sites where he had buried scores of bodies. He was expected to guide investigators to hidden burial sites, to bring long-buried crimes into the light. Instead, what unfolded was an anti-climax. Standing before the Special Investigation Team (SIT), he retracted, turned evasive, and left the cause of justice weakened.

For the victims’ families and the Justice for Soujanya movement, this was more than a setback — it was a betrayal. Detractors of the movement, especially those sympathetic to the Dharmasthala establishment, quickly seized upon his reversal. They proclaimed the case hollow, the allegations baseless, and the agitation misdirected. But this convenient narrative leaves out the more troubling possibility: that Chinnaya did not change his story voluntarily but was forced to do so.

The Detractors’ Claim

Those skeptical of the movement argue that Chinnaya’s backtracking proves he was never a reliable witness. According to them, his tales of hidden bodies and secret burials were dramatic inventions, designed to grab attention but impossible to substantiate. When brought before the SIT, they say, he could not stand by his own words because there was no truth to them. For these critics, the “damp squib” outcome of his testimony only confirms what they have long believed — that allegations against Dharmasthala are politically motivated, orchestrated by vested interests, and lack any concrete foundation.

Why That Narrative Collapses

This line of reasoning, however, is built on shaky ground. If Chinnaya had merely been inventing stories, why did corroborative evidence later surface through Vittal Gowda, who independently indicated the same burial sites? Why did Chinnaya risk his safety in the first place by naming powerful interests and offering to guide investigators, only to suddenly fall silent? The simplest explanation is not that he lied, but that he was silenced and retract. Detractors avoid this question because it implicates entrenched networks of power and fear.

Reports have circulated that Chinnaya was subjected to intimidation. Some allege that SIT officials themselves, whether acting under pressure or compulsion, discouraged him from speaking. He was bulldozed, threatened, and rendered powerless. The question arises: why did the SIT chief not act with foresight? Knowing that this witness carried crucial information, why was he not taken into confidence? Why was his security and psychological safety not assured?

The Path Ahead

The strongest rebuttal to Chinnaya’s detractors comes from the very evidence that surfaced after his retreat. Vittal Gowda’s testimony confirms that these burial accounts were not fabrications. If Chinnaya faltered, it was not out of deceit, but out of fear. That fear, and the forces that cultivated it, must be exposed.

A Call to Action

The Karnataka government cannot afford to treat Chinnaya’s retreat as the final word. If intimidation silenced him, then those responsible are as guilty as the perpetrators of the original crimes. The SIT must be instructed to revisit this angle with seriousness, to identify the sources of pressure, and to restore credibility to its work. Witnesses like Chinnaya and Vittal Gowda need ironclad protection, not casual neglect. If the state allows fear to dictate silence, it sends a dangerous message — that truth has no chance against entrenched power. Justice for Soujanya, and for countless other unnamed victims, depends on whether the government chooses courage over complicity.

eom