The Supreme Court on Wednesday blasted the Haryana police for making attempts to shield an accused in the sexual assault case of a four-year-old child. The court said that the police tried to water down the charges against the accused man and that the conduct of the officers with the child and her parents showed “heights of insensitivity”.
The bench, comprised of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, also formed a Special Investigation team, led by senior woman IPS officer Nazneen Bhasin IPS to restart the investigation into the case with “complete human sensitivity.”
It issued a show-cause notice to Gurugram Police Commissioner Vikas Kumar Arora and other senior and the doctor who changed the child's medical report.
The bench also criticised the officer for cross-examining the child and said that it was the “worst form of secondary victimisation" and “disrespect". "The entire police force, from the commissioner to the sub-inspector, made all attempts to prove that the child had no proof or that the parents did not make any sense," the court said.
The court observed that, though there was prima facie evidence that indicated the offence of 'aggravated penetrative sexual assault' under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the police registered the FIR only for 'aggravated sexual assault' under Section 10, a lesser offence.
While the first provides for at least 20 years in jail, section 10 provides for 10 years.
The court was hearing the parents' petition where they alleged inaction by Gurugram police. They had earlier sought replies from the police and district judiciary on how the child was questioned in the presence of the accused. It questioned why a report from the Child Welfare committee outweighed the child’s statement and lowered the offence and asked the counsel "not to defend the indefensible".
"Please see the police officers. Their station and position... deputy commissioner of police, assistant superintendent of police. If this is the understanding of the offence on a four-year-old child, then what about the rule of law? ... Rape is not penal penetration alone. The police are clearly not aware. This is yawningly distressing. The highest police officer was involved to bring down the seriousness of the offence from Section 6 to Section 10," Justice Bagchi said.
"The way family and child have been harassed! The child went through more horrifying experiences after what happened to her. Repeated victimisation!" CJI Surya Kant noted.
"They have not even read the bare Act," the Chief Justice said. "You have disbelieved the innocence of a four-year-old child. Shame on them. If the state has any respect for the law, they must be immediately transferred. You say CCTV is not there, etc. For 15 days, you have not done anything. The moment we take cognisance, you start arresting. Do you want us to tell you why you were busy? This case exhibits the heights of insensitivity," he said.
The court also slammed the the Child Welfare Committee for their insensitive handling of the child and questioned whether they possessed the educational qualification required to assist in such cases.
"Who appointed these CWC members? Acted as if the victim were a table or chair! They should have gone to her house," CJI Kant said.
