Supreme Court forms SIT of three women IPS officers to probe 4-year-old's rape case in Gurugram

THe sublime margaret court on wed constituted a special investigating team up comprising senior women IPS officers to probe the alleged sexual assault of a four-year-old girl in Gurugram, expressing shock at the “insensitivity” of the police and the manner in which the child was repeatedly traumatised during the investigation.A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi also initiated action against police officials, Child Welfare Committee (CWC) members, and a doctor involved in the case, observing that the handling of the matter reflected a “completely unlawful” and “reckless” approach.“The trauma of the child was multiplied as a result of insensitive, reckless and irresponsible… method of investigation,” recorded the court, adding that the conduct of authorities had led to “repeated victimisation”.Ordering a complete overhaul of the investigation, the court directed that an SIT comprising three women IPS officials take over the case from the Gurugram police. The police commissioner, investigating officer, and other officials named in the record were immediately disassociated from the probe, with existing investigation papers to be handed over to the SIT without delay.ALSO READ | Ggm man moves SC for daughter’s rape case citing police inactionThe bench issued show-cause notices to police officers involved in the initial probe, asking why disciplinary action should not be initiated against them. It sought explanations from members of CWC over their February 6 report and directed the Haryana government’s principal secretary (women and child development) to explain the basis of their appointment, raising doubts over their qualifications and competence. A doctor from a private hospital who examined the child was also asked to explain why her medical report was altered.At the heart of the court’s concern was what it described as a concerted attempt to dilute the gravity of the offence. Despite prima facie indications of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, the police registered the FIR under Section 10 – a lesser charge – “for undisclosed reasons.”“There is no room of doubt that an offence under Section 6 was apparently committed…The entire police force… made all attempts to prove that the child had no proof or that the parents did not make any sense,” the bench noted.The court was particularly critical of the reliance placed on the CWC report to downplay the offence. “You say it’s not a case of rape but assault? It’s for courts to decide, not CWC,” remarked the court, calling the approach “yawningly distressing.”The bench was equally disturbed by the manner in which the child was treated during the investigation, describing it as “the worst form of secondary victimisation.” It emerged that the child’s statement was recorded in the presence of the accused and that she had been subjected to repeated questioning.ALSO READ | ‘Shocked by insensitivity’: Supreme Court summons Gurugram police chief over minor’s rape“She has been cross-examined… this is the worst form of disrespect… the way the family and child have been harassed… the child went through more horrifying experience after what happened with her,” it lamented.The bench also pulled up the authorities for allegedly disbelieving the child’s account. “You have disbelieved the innocence of a four-year-old child. Shame on them!” it said.The court did not spare the judicial side, noting that the magistrate failed to ensure the case was investigated under the appropriate provision despite prima facie material. It also questioned the functioning of CWC, observing that its members appeared to have acted with little sensitivity or understanding of child protection norms.The case had come up before the Supreme Court earlier this week, when it expressed shock at the handling of the investigation and summoned the Gurugram police commissioner and investigating officer with the case record. The victim’s family, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, had alleged a “complete dereliction of duty,” pointing to delays in arrests, failure to collect key evidence such as CCTV footage, and repeated summoning of the child for questioning.