The Supreme Court on Monday sought the chargesheet, status report, and all relevant video material in the alleged rape and death of a four-year-old child in Ghaziabad, indicating that the need for a Special Investigation Team (SIT) would be considered only after examining whether any gaps exist in the ongoing probe.

Appearing for the State, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati submitted that the chargesheet had already been filed under enhanced provisions of the POCSO Act and cognizance had been taken. She informed the Court that forensic samples, including blood and bodily fluids, had been sent for DNA analysis, and that hospitals had also been served in the proceedings.

Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, however, raised serious concerns over the investigation, alleging attempts to shield hospitals and inconsistencies in the police version. He pointed to video evidence purportedly showing the child alive when brought to hospital, contrary to recorded statements, and flagged an 18-hour delay in lodging the FIR, which initially invoked only murder charges without reference to sexual assault.

The Court also took note of allegations that the child was denied timely medical treatment by private hospitals, with counsel contending that refusal to admit the child may have contributed to her death. Concerns were further raised regarding the handling of evidence and alleged reluctance in registering and pursuing the case.

When the State pointed out that senior police officials, including the SHO, were present in Court, the Bench remarked that ‘they should be aware of these things’, signalling concern over the manner in which the investigation had been conducted.

The Bench, led by the Chief Justice, cautioned against prematurely constituting an SIT, observing that such a step should not delay the process. It directed that the status report, chargesheet, and all relied-upon video material be furnished to the petitioner to enable scrutiny. The respondent hospitals were also directed to file affidavits responding to the allegations made against them.

The Court clarified that it would consider further directions, including constitution of an SIT, only after the petitioner examines the material and points out specific deficiencies in the investigation.