SC calls Haryana police's approach to 3-yr-old's rape 'shameful'

SC sets up SIT of woman IPS officers

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday rapped Gurugram Police for its "shameful" and "insensitive" handling of a case involving the rape of a three-year-old girl, calling it "repeated victimisation of the child” and “the worst form of disrespect to the victim.”

The court said the police appeared completely oblivious to the “very definition of rape,” terming the conduct "deeply distressing".

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi constituted a special investigation team (SIT) of women IPS officers to conduct a fair investigation into the crime that took place in Gurugram.

The bench asked the Haryana government to immediately notify the SIT and directed Gurugram Police to hand over the case records to the probe panel.

The court was hearing a petition seeking a court-monitored probe into the incident at a condominium in Gurugram, where two housemaids and their male associates were accused of sexually assaulting the minor.

The bench issued show-cause notices to Gurugram Police officials, asking why action should not be taken against them for the "shoddy" investigation. It also issued a show-cause notice to the Gurugram CWC as to why they should not be removed.

The court observed that the entire police force made all attempts to prove that the child had no proof and the parents did not make any case. "There is no room for doubt that an offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act was apparently committed," the bench said.

The top court then directed the Gurugram district judge to entrust the case to a senior woman judicial officer presiding over a POCSO court in the city.

The court castigated the Haryana Police for downgrading the offence from a harsher provision to a milder one in its FIR filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

The bench slammed the police's understanding and sensitivity regarding an offence against a child after the latter gave her statement, in which she clearly asserted the details of the incident.

The court noted, the police stated it was not a rape case but that of assault. It said the police are completely unaware of the definition of rape, saying it was “distressing to see the highest police officer in the state taking a stance with that sort of assertion to bring down an offence''.

The bench criticised the child's family for harassing her, stating that "these people subjected the child to a more horrifying experience than what she had already endured. This is the worst form of secondary victimisation.”

The CJI said, “it is repeated victimisation of the child.”

The bench said the child’s cross examination was ''the worst form of disrespect to the victim”. The bench said it was disbelieving the statement of the less than four-year-old child by using third rate methods and “it is a shame on them. If the state has any respect for law, they must be immediately transferred…and the moment we take cognizance, you start arresting.”

The state counsel noted the medical report where it stated the parents’ themselves were little doubtful and that is what they expressed before the hospital doctor. “This is the height of insensitivity, this case exhibits…who appointed Child Welfare Committee (CWC) members. What is their qualification?” the bench asked.

The bench said the incident occurred in February and after a gap of three days, CWC members had telephonic conversation with the petitioner and asked the petitioner to produce the victim, and if they have any respect for the sentiments of the child they should have gone to her house.

The state counsel said the commissioner had only called the parents. “Why he can’t go? Does he think himself as king? Why can’t the police go to the house of the victim?” the bench asked, noting that the police officer who had gone to her house has been arrested in corruption charges now.

The bench also pulled up a doctor at a private hospital for completely changing her version on the child's statement and said, "It was shameful for a doctor to do so."