The Supreme Court issued notice to the Uttar Pradesh government, the police, and the two private hospitals that allegedly denied the girl admission. (File Photo)
Maintaining that facts of the alleged rape and murder case of a 4-year-old girl has shocked its conscience, the Supreme Court on Friday sought the presence of the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner with “all original reports” of the case on April 13.
“The facts and circumstances of this case shock the conscience of this court,” a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi said, adding that a court-monitored time-bound probe by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) or a central agency is immediately required into the matter.
On March 16, the girl was allegedly lured away by a neighbour on the pretext of buying chocolates. When the child did not return, her father started looking for her and found her lying unconscious and soaked in blood in a field. The accused was allegedly seen emerging from the field.
Senior lawyer N Hariharan, appearing for the girl’s father, a daily wager, alleged that two private hospitals in Ghaziabad refused to admit the child and she was eventually declared dead at a government hospital.
Dismayed, the court issued notices to the two hospitals as well as to the Uttar Pradesh government and the station house officer (SHO) of the concerned police station.
Expressing its displeasure over the manner in which the police had conducted the probe, the court sought a status report. “…Let a status report be filed… Commissioner of police, Ghaziabad, and SHO… shall remain personally present. Let notice be served on the private hospitals (which refused admission to the victim child). List the case on Monday,” the bench ordered.
With Hariharan stating that the family is being threatened and harassed by the police, the court directed that no coercive action be taken “against the petitioner, his family members, or the witnesses”. It also asked the police and the hospitals “to ensure that the identity of the child – and, to the extent possible, the identity of her family members – is not disclosed”.
Story continues below this ad
“The most shocking part of this case is that the offence exhibits the complete indifference and the inhuman, insensitive approach of private hospitals as well as the local police,” the bench said.
Noting the facts of the case, the court said, “…The petitioner (father) found the victim unconscious, covered in blood… He took her to a private hospital, where the doctor refused to treat her. He thereafter took her to another private hospital, where too, the victim was also denied admission. Finally, the child was taken to… a government hospital where she was declared dead on arrival.”
Hariharan submitted, “The post-mortem (report) was available with the police. It is showing injuries to private parts. There seems to be a blunt object, which has been inserted in the private parts which would be the person’s reproductive organ. No enquiry has been done directed towards that… they consider to investigate the offence, as if that is only relating to a case of murder.”
“The police report says the child was dead when the case came to them… which is contrary to what has happened,” he said.
Story continues below this ad
“…There is a video recording (made) by villagers showing that the child was alive… The man (father) picked up the child and rushed to the hospital… That recording is also available (in) which they (hospitals) are refusing to accept (admit the child),” he said, adding that the neighbours have been issued notices stating that they are breaching the peace.
The bench said the trauma of the victim’s family was further compounded when the matter was reported to local police. “Instead of taking cognizance of such a horrible offence and trauma, the petitioner and his family members were allegedly locked up and physically assaulted. Even the petitioner’s wife was not spared. They were asked to remain silent about the incident.”
The bench noted that no offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act or the rape charge was added in the FIR, which was lodged on March 17, though the case apparently involved sexual assault. “Having realised the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the accused was apprehended on March 18,” it said.
When the Ghaziabad authorities told the court that a chargesheet has been filed in the case, the court said, “You do all this hanky panky and then file a chargesheet.”
