Supreme Court Expresses Outrage Over Child Sexual Assault Case

New Delhi, March 25: The Supreme Court expressed severe anger over an incident involving the sexual assault of a four-year-old girl. It lashed out at the Gurugram Police, stating they handled the girl and her parents without the slightest sensitivity. Faulting the manner in which the cross-examination was conducted, the Court reprimanded the authorities, calling it “atrocious behavior” and a “disrespectful” treatment of the victims. The victim’s parents had approached the apex court alleging a poor response from the police in this sexual assault case. Their petition came up for hearing once again on Wednesday.

“Are You Kings?” Questions the Bench “

It is a matter of shame that instead of going to the child as part of the investigation, she was summoned to the police station. Why didn’t you go to the victim’s house? Are you kings?” the Supreme Court bench questioned. The Court also asked why the charges were downgraded from Section 6 to Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Under Section 6, a conviction carries a 20-year prison sentence, whereas Section 10 carries only 10 years. The Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Haryana Police, replied that the change was made based on a report by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC).

Severe Criticism of the Investigation

“How did you feel this report took precedence over the victim’s statement? You did not believe the child’s innocence. Efforts were made to prove there was no evidence. If this is your understanding of an incident involving the sexual assault of a child, what about the rule of law? The police lack a clear understanding of this incident, which is concerning. If the state government has any respect for the law, it should transfer the concerned officers. You claim there is no CCTV and cite other excuses. What have you been doing for the last 15 days? You only started making arrests once we took notice of this case. Who exactly are the members of the Child Welfare Committee? What are their qualifications? Who appoints them?” the Court fumed.

Orders for a SIT and Notices Issued

The Court also took issue with the fact that the child’s name was mentioned in the affidavit, which is a violation of privacy laws. It ordered the formation of a three-member Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the case. The SIT was directed to take over the case records by Thursday. Furthermore, the Court issued notices to the police and the Child Welfare Committee, demanding an explanation as to why action should not be taken against them for negligence in the investigation. The Gurugram District Judge was also ordered to transfer the case to the POCSO Court.