‘Shame on them for disbelieving a 4-yr-old’: SC slams Gurugram cops for ‘unlawful probe’ in POCSO case

Bench led by CJI Surya Kant also pulled up Child Welfare Committee (CWC)—which had wanted girl's parents to produce her before them—raised questions over qualification of its members.

Illustration: Shruti Naithani/ThePrint

New Delhi: The Haryana Police on Wednesday faced severe flak from the Supreme Court for diluting a POCSO case involving a three-year-old girl in Gurugram and repeatedly harassing the victim by asking her parents to “produce” her, instead of sending a team of police officers to meet the child.

A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant was shocked to find out that even the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) had wanted the child’s parents to produce her before it. Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi were the other bench members. “You wanted her to be produced as if she is some table or chair,” CJI Suryakant said, visibly angered and perturbed by the police’s “insensitive” approach in the case.

“The way family and child have been harassed! Child went through more horrifying experience after what happened with her. Repeated victimization,” CJI Surya Kant noted. “Worst form of disrespect to a victim,” Justice Bagchi added.

The court was even more disappointed when the counsel for the victim’s parents pointed out that a senior doctor from Max Hospital, Gurugram, who had examined the child soon after the incident in February, had sought to withdraw her observations in the medical report given then. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi apprised the court about the doctor’s letter written on 21 March to the Gurugram SHO, in which he said the doctor took a stand contrary to the previous one.

Rohatgi also highlighted that the doctor’s letter came a day after the top court took cognizance of the matter, after he mentioned it before the CJI-led bench. In her medical report, the doctor had mentioned about the child being made to put a “lollipop” in her mouth, but the letter to the SHO states that the victim was prompted by her mother to make the statement.

Unplugged Investigation

The family had petitioned the court through advocate Namisha Gupta when the Haryana Police did not make any arrests even a month after the incident. The series of infirmities in the investigation so far prompted the court to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the case. It would be led by senior woman IPS officer from Haryana police—Nazneen Bhasin. The court directed the Gurugram Police to immediately disassociate the current investigating officer from the case.

“You arrested the accused only after the court took up the matter,” the CJI told the counsel representing the Haryana government. The court issued notice to the police officers, including senior officials who were till now associated with the case, to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against them.

Pulling up the CWC for its insensitivity, the court raised serious doubts over the qualification of its members. It directed the Principal Secretary of the Haryana government to file an affidavit furnishing reasons for appointing them, besides seeking an explanation from the CWC members for their “unsympathetic” conduct in the case.

Notice was also issued to the Max hospital doctor to explain the reasons for changing the medical report prepared after examining the victim.

The court was left deeply “distressed” after perusing the Haryana government report which revealed that the child’s statement was recorded multiple times. It took note that senior police officers as well as the magistrate before whom the victim recorded her statement on oath did not raise objection to the dilution of the case.

“Trauma and plight of the child was multiplied due to the insensitive, reckless, irresponsible and completely unlawful method of investigation having been adopted by Gurugram Police,” the court noted in the order.

During the hearing, it observed orally: “If this is the quality of understanding sensitivity in case of a 4-yr old child, what do you expect of the rule of law? You say it’s not a case of rape but assault? We are indicating what’s distressing. Highest police officials taking that stance to bring down the offence to Section 10 (of POCSO). It’s for courts to decide, not CWC,” the bench said.

The court noted that the victim’s statement disclosed an offence under Section 6 of POCSO, or aggravated penetrative assault by someone in a position of trust or authority which is punishable by 20 years in jail. However, the FIR was under Section 10—aggravated sexual assault—is punishable with seven years of imprisonment.

“You’re disbelieving a 4-year-old child… Shame on them. If the state has any respect for law, they will transfer them,” remarked the CJI.

(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)