Supreme Court pulls up Gurugram police in child rape case; transfers probe to all-women SIT

The Supreme Court on Wednesday transferred the probe into the Gurugram child rape case to a special investigation team [XXX vs State of Haryana].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi noted that the probe conducted so far by the Gurugram Police gave an impression that the accused was being protected.

Hence, it directed that the case be handed over to an SIT of three senior women IPS officers.

Pertinently, the Court also took strong exception to the conduct of the police officials, the Child Welfare Committee members and the doctor who did the medical examination of the child.

The Court issued notice to them and sought their explanation on why action should not be taken against them.

The order was passed after examining status reports filed by the State of Haryana and the Gurugram police.

After examining the reports, the Court questioned the dilution of the offence from Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act to Section 10 (aggravated sexual assault).

“How was the offence reduced from Section 6 to Section 10?” Justice Bagchi asked.

When the State relied on a Child Welfare Committee (CWC) report, he responded,

“How did the CWC report outweigh the statement of the child?”

The Court found the approach of the investigating agency wholly unacceptable.

“When the child makes a clear assertion of penetration in mouth, you say it is not rape but sexual assault. Rape is not penile penetration alone. Police is clearly not aware,” Justice Bagchi said.

“They have not even read the bare Act,” the CJI weighed in.

The Bench said the course adopted during the probe had deepened the harm to the child.

“This is the worst form of secondary victimisation,” Justice Bagchi observed.

“You have disbelieved the innocence of a four-year-old child. Shame on them… This case exhibits the heights of insensitivity,” the CJI said.

The Court also turned to the role of the Child Welfare Committee, noting that its report appeared to have influenced the course of investigation.

It said it had serious doubts about the academic and professional qualifications of the members and asked them to explain their February report within a week.

The State’s Principal Secretary of Women and Child Development was directed to place on record the basis of their appointments.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the victim, pointed out that a doctor had initially issued a medical report but later wrote to the police stating that no offence was made out.

The Court said that such conduct was “completely illegal.”

Taking note of these lapses, the Bench directed that the investigation be taken away from the Gurugram police and entrusted to SIT.

The Court directed that the entire case records be handed over to the SIT and that all officers connected with the earlier probe stand removed.

Show-cause notices were also issued to the police officials concerned, the doctor in question and the Child Welfare Committee members, asking why disciplinary action should not be taken.

The Court also flagged that documents placed on record disclosed the identity of the child.

“All documents disclosing identity of the child have been pasted everywhere… Whole day we teach don’t disclose the victim identity,” the Chief Justice remarked.

Thus, it directed that all such details be redacted.

The Court in its order also emphasised that the child should not be called to the police station again and that the investigation must proceed in a manner that preserves the dignity of the child and her parents.

The trial proceedings were directed to be placed before a senior woman judicial officer under the POCSO framework. The matter will be taken up again on April 6.

[Read Live Coverage]