The Supreme Court on Wednesday constituted a special investigation team including senior women IPS officers to probe the alleged sexual assault of a four-year-old girl in Gurugram, expressing shock at the “insensitivity” of the police and the way the child was repeatedly subjected to trauma during the investigation.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalia Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi also initiated proceedings against police officials, members of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and the doctor involved in the case, observing that the handling of the matter reflects a “completely illegal” and “reckless” approach.
The court recorded that “the child’s trauma was compounded as a result of the insensitive, reckless and irresponsible investigation method,” adding that the behavior of the authorities led to “repeated abuse.”
The court ordered an overhaul of the investigation and directed that a special investigation committee comprising three women IPS officers take over the case from the Gurugram police. The Police Commissioner, the investigating officer and other officials mentioned in the report were immediately dismissed from the investigation, with the existing investigation papers being handed over to the Special Court of Investigation without delay.
Read also | Ggm man moves SC in daughter rape case due to police inaction
The bench issued show-cause notices to the police officers involved in the preliminary investigation, questioning why disciplinary action was not taken against them. It sought clarifications from the members of the Child Welfare Committee regarding their report issued on February 6, and asked the Haryana Government’s Principal Secretary (Women and Child Development) to explain the basis of their appointment, raising doubts about their qualifications and competence. He also asked a doctor from a private hospital who examined the child to explain the reason for changing her medical report.
At the heart of the court’s concern was what it described as a coordinated attempt to reduce the seriousness of the crime. Despite apparent indications of penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POXO) Act, the police registered an FIR under Section 10 – a lesser charge – for “undisclosed reasons”.
“There is no room for doubt that an offense under section 6 had apparently been committed…the entire police force…made every attempt to prove that the child had no evidence or that the parents had no sense,” the council noted.
The court particularly criticized the reliance on the Chemical Weapons Committee report to downplay the significance of the crime. “You are saying it is not a case of rape but of assault? That is for the courts, not the Chemical Weapons Convention,” the court commented, describing this approach as “deeply troubling.”
The court also expressed its alarm at the way the child was treated during the investigation, describing it as “the worst form of secondary abuse.” It turned out that the child’s statements were recorded in the presence of the accused, and she was subjected to repeated interrogation.
Read also | ‘Shocked by insensitivity’: Supreme Court summons Gurugram police chief over rape of minor
She added: “She was interrogated… This is the worst form of disrespect… The way the family and the child were harassed… The child had an even more horrific experience after what happened to her.”
The authority also arrested the authorities on charges of not believing the child’s story. “You have disbelieved in the innocence of a four-year-old child. Shame on them!” He said.
The court did not exclude the judicial aspect, noting that the judge failed to ensure that the case was investigated under the appropriate ruling despite the existence of prima facie evidence. It also questioned the performance of the Child Protection Committee, noting that its members appeared to act with little sensitivity or understanding of child protection standards.
The case had come up in the Supreme Court earlier this week, when it expressed shock over the handling of the investigation and summoned the Gurugram Police Commissioner and the investigating officer along with the case record. The victim’s family, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, alleged “complete dereliction of duty”, citing delays in arrests, failure to collect key evidence such as CCTV footage, and repeated summoning of the child for interrogation.
