In a significant intervention, the Supreme Court on Friday ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the rape and murder of a four-year-old girl in Uttar Pradesh’s Ghaziabad district while also directing an enquiry into alleged negligence by two private hospitals.
The top court noted that the trial in the case had already commenced but took on record concerns raised by the victim’s family regarding the conduct of the public prosecutor and fear of an unfair trial.
“Petitioner has placed on record documents stating that the conduct of the public prosecutor is not above the mark and that the parents are in constant fear and apprehensive that there won’t be a fair and just trial,” the bench observed. At the same time, it clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the allegations, including those against the private hospitals.
Acknowledging the “barbaric nature” of the offence and the parents’ dissatisfaction with the probe so far, the court directed the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police to constitute an SIT with a strong representation of women officers.
The team will include a woman officer of Inspector General (IG) rank, one woman Superintendent of Police (SP), and a woman Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP).
The SIT has been asked to resume the investigation from Saturday, examine the grievances raised by the victim’s parents, and ensure protection of private witnesses. The top court has also directed the SIT to further probe the role of the two private hospitals named in the case.
According to the parent’s case, negligence by two private hospitals caused the victim’s death. It is alleged that while the first hospital refused to admit the girl child who was alive when taken to both hospitals, the second hospital also acted carelessly.
In the interim, the trial court proceedings have been stayed by the Supreme Court today. The court has asked the SIT to complete its investigation within two weeks and submit a report to the Registrar (Judicial) of the court.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate N Hariharan, appearing for the victim’s father, alleged coercive conduct by the police. He told the court that the father was “dragged” by police officials to record a statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, despite the police claiming that the investigation had already been completed and a chargesheet filed.
“If the investigation is complete, why record the statement now?” he asked, adding that visuals show a policeman dragging the father. He further questioned the need for such coercion when the hospitals have filed affidavits stating that the child was alive at the time she was brought in.
The counsels also alleged that investigating officers appeared to be “shielding” the hospitals, pointing out that no one from the medical institutions had been examined so far. “This requires a probe,” he argued.
The Supreme Court, in its order, recorded that these concerns, including allegations of negligence by the local police and the two private hospitals, had been noted earlier and warranted closer scrutiny to ensure a fair investigation.