Three people allegedly raped a three-year-old girl together. Instead of taking the allegation seriously, police are trying to save the accused! The Child Welfare Committee (CWC) is doing the same. The role of police and the committee is extremely shameful and the ultimate example of insensitivity.
In exactly these words, the country's highest court reprimanded Haryana police and CWC and formed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate this case. At the same time, it directed the Haryana government to ensure that the Gurugram police commissioner, two deputy commissioners, one assistant commissioner and all police officers who were involved in investigating this incident are not associated with it in any way. The Supreme Court was angered by the police investigation's approach in a case of continuous sexual abuse of a child. They were reprimanded that day too.
Court questions dilution of POCSO charges
After that, it had directed the Haryana government to submit a status report on Wednesday about what progress had been made in the investigation. After examining that report, the bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Jaymalya Bagchi and Justice Bipul M Pancholi wanted to know on what grounds exactly did police show the charge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, i.e., aggravated penetrative sexual assault, as Section 10 of the same act, i.e., aggravated sexual assault?
Questions were also raised about whether police officials know the definition of rape at all and whether they have read the law. According to the FIR filed on February 4, in December 2024 and January 2025, two female domestic helpers and one unidentified male accomplice living in a multi-story residence repeatedly sexually abused the three-year-old child. The bench said in their order, "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 also 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.
The Chief Justice said that the child has suffered severe mental trauma due to police behavior. "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 sternly "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. In response to the court's question, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said the charges were reduced based on the CWC report and the child's statement.
Also Read | Supreme Court rules in favour of women SSC officers, flags systemic bias in armed forces
However, Justice Bagchi made it clear that despite the child's statement mentioning serious penetrative sexual abuse, why it was reduced is not acceptable. Bhati said she is not trying to justify anything, but the investigation was conducted according to the private hospital report and CWC's instructions. The bench said that whatever the committee may say, determining the severity of crime is the court's job, not the CWC's.
The CJI said CWC members called the child's father asking him to come to the office. As if they were ordering tables and chairs. She is just a three-year-old child. After this, the court directed the principal secretary of Haryana government's women and child development department to submit an affidavit regarding the appointment and qualifications of CWC members. Finally, the Chief Justice commented,"Who appointed these CWC members? Acted as if the victim were a table or chair! They should have gone to her house."
