The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Gurugram police commissioner to appear before it on March 25 with the complete record of investigation into the alleged sexual assault of a four-year-old girl at a condominium in the city, expressing shock at the “insensitivity” shown by the police and the manner in which the child was further traumatised during the probe. The incident reportedly involved two housemaids and their male associates. Supreme Court of India. (PTI)
A bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, said it was compelled to take stock of the investigation and indicated that it may constitute a special investigation team (SIT) comprising senior women police officers. The court also signalled that the trial may be shifted to another court after serious concerns were raised about how the magistrate recorded the child’s statement.
“The most shocking thing is your police officer asking the parents ‘what do you want?’ When someone comes to you with a complaint of this kind, isn’t your duty to register an FIR immediately? Have you forgotten the first principle of law?...and this is the state of affairs in a metro city?” the court asked the state.
The strong observations came during a hearing on a petition seeking a court-monitored probe into the incident at a condominium in Gurugram, where two housemaids and their male associates are accused of sexually assaulting the minor.
Appearing for the victim’s family, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi told the court that “the more I get to know about the matter, it gets more and more serious,” alleging a “complete dereliction of duties” by both the police and the magistrate. He pointed to a series of actions that, he said, violated basic safeguards under child protection laws and compounded the trauma of the victim.
The bench questioned the delay in arrests, noting that action was taken only recently. “I read in the newspaper that some arrests were made only now. What were they doing till now?” the CJI asked. Rohatgi responded that despite the FIR being registered over a month ago, there had been little progress in the investigation until the matter was brought before the Supreme Court.
The court was particularly disturbed by the manner in which the child’s statement was recorded. Rohatgi submitted that the minor was repeatedly called to the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) over the past month and questioned in the absence of her parents. He further alleged that the accused were physically presented before the child for identification, rather than following legally prescribed procedures.
The bench expressed disbelief at these submissions, asking how such identification was carried out. “What kind of insensitivity is the police showing?… How can you treat a four-year-old child like this? Traumatise her further?” the court remarked.
Rohatgi also read from an affidavit filed by the girl’s father, which he described a “disturbing sequence of events”, including repeated questioning by CWC members, movement between multiple hospitals for tests, and the magistrate allegedly urging the child to “speak the truth” in the presence of the accused. Assisted by advocates Pranay Shirdhar Chitale and Namisha Gupta, he argued that such actions amounted to “re-traumatisation” and violated established legal safeguards, while urging the bench to lay down suitable guidelines for such matters.
While the Haryana government maintained that steps had been taken and sought to place a status report on record, 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 furnish details of three senior women police officers, indicating that an SIT could be formed.
In addition, the court ordered that the father’s affidavit be kept in a sealed cover and forwarded to the district and sessions judge, Gurugram, seeking comments from the magistrate on the contentions regarding the recording of the child’s statement. The court indicated that, depending on the response, it may consider transferring the trial to another judge.
The case had first come up before the Supreme Court on March 20, when Rohatgi sought urgent listing, alleging that despite the FIR being registered in February for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the police had failed to collect crucial evidence such as CCTV footage or make arrests.
Within a day of the mention, the Gurugram police arrested three accused, including two housemaids and a male accomplice. However, the petitioner has continued to press for an independent probe, alleging that the investigation remains “shoddy” and compromised.
Taking note of the “disturbing” facts emerging from the record, the Supreme Court said it would closely monitor the matter and consider further steps to ensure a fair and sensitive investigation into the allegations.