The Supreme Court of India has sharply criticized the Haryana Police for their handling of a disturbing case involving the rape of a four-year-old girl in Gurugram. The court’s remarks came during a session where it was revealed that the police may have been attempting to shield the accused from serious charges, thereby compromising the investigation.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, stated that there appeared to be deliberate efforts from the police to downplay the severity of the crime. They highlighted the existence of strong prima facie evidence that indicated the commission of ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault,’ as defined under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. However, the police had only registered a First Information Report (FIR) for the lesser charge of ‘aggravated sexual assault’ under Section 10 of the same Act.
This discrepancy is alarming, as Section 6 carries a minimum sentence of 20 years, while Section 10 prescribes a maximum of just 10 years. The court underscored the importance of correctly categorizing such grave offenses, emphasizing that the police’s actions could result in significant injustice for the victim and her family.
Chief Justice Kant expressed his outrage at the police’s response, stating that it was unacceptable for law enforcement to disbelieve a four-year-old child who had already endured a horrifying ordeal. He condemned the police’s attempts to undermine the testimony of the child’s parents, remarking that the actions of the entire police hierarchy, from the commissioner down to the sub-inspector, seemed geared towards protecting the accused rather than seeking justice for the victim.
In a bid to ensure a thorough and impartial investigation, the Supreme Court has ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the case further. The team will be led by an Indian Police Service officer, Nazneen, tasked with ensuring that justice is served without bias or interference. This decision reflects the court’s commitment to safeguarding the rights of vulnerable individuals, particularly minors, who often find themselves at the mercy of a flawed system.
