In a petition filed before the Jharkhand High Court regarding the investigation being conducted of a 12-year-old girl child’s rape and brutal murder, a Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary directed the institution of a suo motu case as a public interest litigation, reprimanded the improper investigation being conducted, and issued notice with other directions.
A copy of a news published in a daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’, dated 29-03-2026, was presented before the Court by the Amicus Curiae, regarding the commission of rape of a 12-year-old girl child and her brutal murder that took place in Hazaribagh on 24-03-2026. It was submitted that the tongue of the victim was cut and that there were serious injuries to her private parts.
It was asserted that although a First Information Report regarding the incident was instituted on 25-03-2026, the culprit had not yet been arrested, and that the victim’s mother, earning her livelihood by working in a brick kiln, was being threatened. Allegations of evidence tampering through coercion of the mother were also put forth.
Considering the sensitivity of the issue and the lethargic attitude of the police, the Court took cognizance of the incident with a direction to institute a suo motu case as a public interest litigation. The Court requested the Member Secretary of the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) to join the proceedings. Thereafter, the Court also requested the Superintendent of Police (S.P.), Hazaribagh, to join the proceedings virtually, who stated that endeavours were being made to ensure a proper investigation.
The Court questioned the investigation since even after a lapse of five days, the culprit had not been arrested in such a heinous crime. The S.P. stated that the technical team’s help was also sought to locate the culprit through his mobile phone, and that the samples had been collected. Upon being asked whether the samples had been sent to FSL, the S.P. replied in the negative and said that an application would need to be filed before the court to obtain permission to do so. The amicus submitted that there was no such requirement and that this was the domain of the investigating officer, so as to prevent manipulation of the samples.
The Court opined that the investigating officer was not proceeding properly in the matter because he had retained the samples in his possession. It was stated that the investigation had not been conducted properly, and the following directions were passed –
• Notice was issued to the Secretary, Home, D.G.P., Jharkhand, and S.P., Hazaribagh, with a direction to file their affidavits.
• The D.G.P. was directed to probe and file an affidavit as to why the samples had not been sent to FSL even after five days and why they were kept in possession of the investigating officer.
• Member Secretary, JHALSA, was directed to probe the matter under the scope of the scheme by JHALSA and to instruct the Secretary, DLSA, to work with the investigating officer so that evidence is not tampered with.
Further, considering the security of the victim’s family members as well as witnesses, the Court clarified that if any untoward incident occurs, the same would be the personal accountability of the S.P., Hazaribagh.
Lastly, the Court directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice, and the newspaper ‘Hindustan’ dated 29-03-2026 be made part of the proceedings.
Appearances:
Amicus Curiae – Mr. Hemant Shikarwar
For Respondents – Mr. Sachin Kumar (AAG-II), Mr. Srikant Swaroop (AC to AAG-II), Mr. Gaurav Raj (AC to AAG-II)
