Blasting Gurugram Police for its response in a four-year-old’s sexual assault case, the Supreme Court today said this is a “glaring” case where attempts were made to shield the accused. The court also flagged the conduct of officers with the child and her parents, saying it reflected “heights of insensivity”.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the case anew with “complete human sensitivity”. It issued a show-cause notice to Gurugram Police Commissioner Vikas Kumar Arora and other senior officers. The court also showcaused the doctor who changed the child’s medical report, and members of the Chief Welfare Committee.
“The entire police force, from the commissioner to the sub-inspector, made all attempts to prove that the child has no proof or the parents did not make any sense,” the court said. Pulling up the officers for cross-examining the child, the court said this is the “worst form of secondary victimisation” and “disrespect”.
The bench was hearing the parents’ petition, alleging inaction by Gurugram police. Earlier, the court had sought replies from the police and the district judiciary on how the magistrate questioned the child in the presence of the accused.
The bench asked why the offence was reduced from Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to Section 10. While Section 6 provides for at least 20 years in jail if the offence is proved, Section 10 provides for 10 years.
When Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for Haryana, said the charges were changed based on a report from the Child Welfare Committee, the court asked why the report outweighed the girl’s statement and asked the counsel “not to defend the indefensible”.
“Please see the police officers. Their station and position… deputy commissioner of police, assistant superintendent of police. If this is the understanding of the offence on a four-year-old child, then what about the rule of law? … Rape is not penal penetration alone. Police is clearly not aware. This is yawningly distressing. The highest police officer was involved to bring down the seriousness of the offence from Section 6 to Section 10,” Justice Bagchi said.
“They have not even read the bare Act,” the Chief Justice said. “You have disbelieved the innocence of a four-year-old child. Shame on them. If the state has any respect for the law, they must be immediately transferred. You say CCTV is not there etc. For 15 days, you have not done anything. The moment we take cognizance, you start arresting. Do you want us to tell you why you were busy? This case exhibits the heights of insensitivity,” he said.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the parents, told the court that the doctor who examined the child changed her report. “This is completely illegal, it is all because of the clout of Haryana Police,” Justice Bagchi remarked.
The Chief Justice also noted that the child’s name is mentioned everywhere in the affidavit. “The whole day we teach, don’t disclose the victim’s identity.” The court also pulled up the cops for not visiting the child’s home. “Why can’t the police go to the house of the victim? Are they kings?” the Chief Justice asked.
The trauma of the child, he said, was “multiplied as a result of insensitive, reckless and irresponsible and completely unlawful method of investigation” by Gurugram police.
The court noted that the incident requires a deep probe. “It seems to us that the incident has to be thoroughly investigated in a most sensitive manner with complete human approach maintaining dignity of the child and her parents,” the court said in its order. “This is a glaring case where the accused was sought to be protected,” the Chief Justice said.
The court said it has serious doubts about the academic and professional qualifications of the CWC members and asked the Haryana government’s Department of Women and Child Development to file an affidavit on why the current members were appointed to the panel.
“How can such members be appointed. What is their qualification and what is the accountability? We know how they are selected. Their only qualification is one, but we don’t want to say anything now,” the Chief Justice added.