SIT submits final report in Ayodhya temple theft case
The panel submitted its preliminary report on June 23, recommending several strict measures to the state government.
- What happened : UP’s Home Department handed the SIT’s final report on the Ayodhya Ram temple donation theft case to the Trust.
- Who led the probe : A three-member SIT headed by Divisional Commissioner Vijay Vishwas Pant, along with IG Kiran S and Special Secretary Neel Ratan Kumar.
- When it started : The SIT was formed on June 13, at the Trust’s request, ahead of Supreme Court involvement.
- Preliminary report : Submitted June 23, with strict recommendations.
- FIR filed : Registered June 25, based on a complaint by Trust member Krishnamohan.
- Accused named : Eight individuals, plus unidentified others.
- Charges : Under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Lucknow: SIT hands over final report on Ayodhya Ram temple donation theft case to Trust
The Uttar Pradesh Home Department has formally passed on the final report prepared by its Special Investigation Team into the Ayodhya Ram temple donation theft case, handing it over to the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust so the Trust can decide on the next course of action. This update came through an official statement issued on Monday, August 17.
The SIT itself is a three-member team, led by Lucknow’s Divisional Commissioner, Vijay Vishwas Pant. It was set up by the state government back on June 13, acting on a request from the Trust, and notably, this happened before the Supreme Court got involved in the matter. Joining Pant on the panel are Range Inspector General Kiran S and Special Secretary (Finance) Neel Ratan Kumar, rounding out the three-person team tasked with looking into the theft allegations.
Before arriving at this final report, the SIT had already submitted an initial, preliminary version to the state government on June 23. That early report didn’t hold back — it came with a set of firm, pointed recommendations that set the tone for what followed.
It was this preliminary report that essentially set things in motion. Acting on its findings, Trust member Krishnamohan went ahead and lodged a formal written complaint at the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi police station. That complaint led directly to an FIR being registered on June 25, officially opening the case from a law enforcement standpoint.
The FIR wasn’t vague about who it named. Eight individuals were listed as accused: Avinash Shukla, Anukalp Mishra, Lavkush Mishra, Manish Kumar Yadav, Karunesh Pandey, Ramashankar Mishra, Subhash Srivastava, and Ram Shankar Yadav, who also goes by the name Tinnu. Beyond these eight, the FIR also left room for other unidentified individuals who may be connected to the case, in case further investigation turns up additional names.
Legally, the accused have been charged under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, India’s newer criminal code, along with Section 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act — a section typically applied in cases involving criminal misconduct by those in positions of trust or public duty. This combination of charges signals that the case is being treated not just as a simple theft, but one that involves an alleged breach of trust tied to the handling of donation funds.
It’s also worth noting that the preliminary report didn’t just trigger the FIR — it became the foundation for everything that came after, including the arrests that followed as the investigation progressed. In other words, that early document carried a lot of weight, shaping both the legal complaint and the subsequent action taken against those named.