The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Gurugram Police Commissioner to appear before it on March 25 with the entire record of the investigation into the alleged sexual assault of a four-year-old girl in a residential complex in the city, expressing shock at the “insensitivity” shown by the police and the way the child was further traumatized during the investigation. The incident reportedly involved two housemaids and their male companions.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalia Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi said it had to evaluate the investigation and indicated it may form a special investigation team (SIT) including senior women police officers. The court also indicated that the trial may be transferred to another court after serious concerns were raised about how the judge recorded the child’s statements.
“The most shocking thing is that your police officer asks the parents ‘What do you want?’ When someone comes to you with a complaint of this kind, is it not your duty to register an FIR immediately? Have you forgotten the first principle of law?…And this is the situation in a metro city?” the court asked the state.
The strong remarks came during a hearing on a petition seeking a court-monitored investigation into the incident at a residential complex in Gurugram, where two maids and their male companions were accused of sexually assaulting the minor.
While appearing before the victim’s family, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi told the court that “the more I know about the matter, the more serious it becomes”, alleging “complete dereliction of duties” by both the police and the judge. He pointed to a series of acts that he said violated basic safeguards under child protection laws and exacerbated the victim’s trauma.
The court questioned the delay in the arrests, noting that the measure was only taken recently. “I read in the newspaper that some arrests have been made just now. What have they been doing so far?” asked the CJI. Rohatgi responded that though the FIR was registered more than a month ago, there was little progress in the investigation until the matter came before the Supreme Court.
The court was particularly disturbed by the manner in which the child’s statements were recorded. Rohatgi reported that the minor was repeatedly summoned to the Child Welfare Committee over the past month and was interrogated in the absence of her parents. It was further alleged that the accused were physically paraded in front of the child to identify him, instead of following the legally prescribed procedures.
The court expressed its disbelief at these requests, questioning how this determination was made. “What kind of insensitivity are the police showing? … How can you treat a four-year-old this way? Further traumatize her?” The court noted.
Rohatgi also read from an affidavit filed by the girl’s father, in which he described a “disturbing sequence of events”, including repeated questioning by CWC members, being moved between multiple hospitals for tests, and the judge allegedly urging the child to “tell the truth” in the presence of the accused. Assisted by advocates Pranay Sherdhar Chitale and Namisha Gupta, he said such acts amounted to “re-traumatization” and violated well-established legal safeguards, while urging the bench to frame appropriate guidelines for such matters.
While the Haryana government maintained that steps have been taken and sought registration of the case report, the court directed the Gurugram Police Commissioner and the investigating officer to remain present on the next date with the entire case file. It also asked the state to provide details of three senior police officers, suggesting the possibility of setting up a special investigation committee.
Additionally, the court directed that the father’s statement be kept in a sealed cover and sent to the District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram, seeking comments from the judge on the allegations regarding recording of the child’s statement. The court indicated that, based on the response, it might consider transferring the trial to another judge.
The case first came up in the Supreme Court on March 20, when Rohatgi sought urgent listing, alleging that despite registering an FIR in February for offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, the police had failed to collect crucial evidence such as CCTV footage or make arrests.
Within a day of this being reported, Gurugram Police arrested three accused, including two maids and a male accomplice. However, the petitioner continued to press for an independent investigation, claiming that the investigation remained “shoddy” and compromised.
In light of the “troubling” facts emerging from the record, the Supreme Court said it would monitor the matter closely and consider taking further steps to ensure a fair and sensitive investigation into the allegations.
