The Supreme Court today came down heavily on the Haryana Police over the handling of an alleged sexual assault of a child below four years in Gurugram, terming the investigation “distressing” and indicative of “repeated victimisation” of the child.

The matter concerns the alleged sexual assault of a child below four years of age in Gurugram. The hearing began with the submissions on procedural gaps, including the fact that a report earlier called for by the District Judge had not yet been received. Submissions responding to the police status report were also being placed before the Court. As the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi examined the status report, it turned its focus to the manner in which the investigation had progressed.

Offence Diluted Later, Court Slams Police Approach

The Court was informed that the FIR was initially registered under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault). However, the police later downgraded the offence to a lesser charge under Section 10. Questioning this move, the Bench expressed strong disapproval:

“After you are cognisant of the statement of a four-year-old child… you say it is not a case of rape, but assault?”

Relying on material placed before it, including the Magistrate’s report, the Court observed that there was sufficient indication of an offence under Section 6 of POCSO.

“From the facts placed before us, including the report submitted by the Judicial Magistrate before whom the victim was produced, we have no manner of doubt that an offence referable to Section 6 of the POCSO Act is prima facie made out. The police, having initially registered the FIR accordingly, appears to have subsequently downgraded the offence to one under Section 10 for wholly unwarranted reasons.”

The Court noted that the downgrading of the offence by the police appeared unwarranted.

The State sought to justify the dilution on the basis of a report by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) and subsequent statements. However, the Court rejected this approach, emphasising that the nature of the offence must be determined on the basis of the victim’s statement and evidence, not external opinions. “It is for the courts to decide, not the CWC… the offence should be based on the victim’s statement,” the Court said.

The Court came down heavily on senior police officials, noting that the decision to dilute charges was taken despite clear allegations by the child. Referring to their involvement, including Deputy Commissioners of Police and Assistant Commissioners, the Court observed:

“If this is the quality of understanding and sensitivity… what do you do with it?”

“Worst Form Of Secondary Victimisation”

The Court was particularly critical of the manner in which the child and her family were treated. It noted that the investigation process itself had compounded the trauma. “This is the worst form of secondary victimisation… rather, repeated victimisation of the child,” the Bench observed.

The Court also took note of instances where the child was subjected to repeated questioning and where attempts were made to discredit her account based on factors such as absence of CCTV footage or other corroborative material.

“You are disbelieving the innocence of a four-year-old… using such methods? Shame on them,” the Court said.

Concerns were also raised about the functioning of the Child Welfare Committee. The Court questioned why authorities had required the child to be brought to offices instead of visiting her, given her age and condition. “A four-year-old child… being called like this? They should have gone to the house,” the Bench remarked.

The Court further flagged inconsistencies in medical evidence, particularly noting that a doctor appeared to have altered her opinion after the matter came under judicial scrutiny. This raised doubts about the integrity of the investigation.

Identity Disclosure & Procedural Lapses

The Bench expressed shock that documents filed before the Court contained identifying details of the child and her family, in violation of settled legal norms.

“This is complete recklessness. On the one hand, we repeatedly emphasise that the identity of the victim must not be disclosed; on the other, such basic safeguards are blatantly ignored. The identity of the child and her parents has been exposed, compounding the trauma. What the child has suffered has only been aggravated by an insensitive, irresponsible and wholly unlawful manner of investigation.”

It directed that all records be redacted to protect the identity and dignity of the victim.

Directions to Constitute SIT & Action Against Police, CWC & Doctor

Expressing lack of confidence in the existing investigation, the Court ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising senior women IPS officers to ensure a fair and sensitive probe. The SIT was directed to take over the investigation immediately, with the State of Haryana instructed to facilitate the process and hand over all records without delay.

The Court initiated strict action against multiple stakeholders:

• Police Officers: Directed to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken.

• CWC Members: Asked to explain their conduct and face possible removal.

• Doctor (Max Hospital): Directed to explain the circumstances behind changing her medical opinion.

The Court issued directions to ensure that the child is not subjected to further trauma:

• The child should not be repeatedly called to police stations or hospitals.

• Proceedings may be placed before a competent court ensuring sensitivity.

• Investigation must be conducted with a “complete human approach” preserving dignity.

“It appears to us that the incident must be investigated thoroughly, in a manner that is both sensitive and humane, with due regard to the dignity of the child victim and the integrity of the evidence.”