The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to examine the Special Investigation Team’s (SIT) final report exonerating three accused in a child sexual assault case from Haryana, observing that the victim’s family has already availed the statutory remedy by filing a protest petition before the Special Court.

The matter arose after counsel for the petitioner submitted that the SIT had filed a final report exonerating all three accused despite the child having consistently named them before the Magistrate, the police and doctors. Counsel argued that the investigation had taken a “complete U-turn” by introducing a fourth person as the perpetrator and urged the Court to examine the final report. The Bench, however, expressed its reservations about scrutinising the report in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.

Counsel submitted that the Court had earlier monitored the investigation, appreciated the SIT’s work and expressed satisfaction with the manner in which the probe was being conducted. He contended that the final outcome was contrary to both the material on record and the Court’s earlier observations.

Also Read: ‘Distressing, Repeated Victimisation’: SC Slams Police In Rape Of 4-Year-Old; Orders SIT Probe

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana noted that after the filing of the final report, the victim’s family had already filed a protest petition before the competent court. Recording this, the Court observed that the Special Court should independently consider the protest petition and proceed in accordance with law.

When counsel complained that the family had not been supplied the complete record accompanying the final report, the Court observed that they were at liberty to approach the Special Court seeking the documents, which would pass appropriate orders on such an application.

The Bench also clarified that since the investigation had concluded and the final report had been filed, the issue relating to the investigation would now be dealt with by the trial court in accordance with the statutory procedure.

On the issue of victim compensation, the Court reiterated that the Special Court should consider the desirability of awarding appropriate compensation under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and other applicable provisions.

The Bench further clarified that the question of negligence or complicity of the medical officers would remain open and that final action on that aspect would depend upon the outcome of the trial. However, it indicated that departmental proceedings for negligence could continue independently of the criminal trial.

During the hearing, counsel appearing for a private paediatrician sought discharge of the show-cause notice issued to him, submitting that he had an unblemished record and had not been involved in the preparation of the medico-legal case (MLC). The Bench declined to examine his explanation at this stage, observing: