New Delhi [India], April 13 (ANI): The Supreme Court on Monday expressed serious doubts on the bona fide (good intent) of the Ghaziabad police’s conduct in investigating a gruesome rape and murder of a four-year-old victim that took place in Nandnagri, Ghaziabad, on March 17.
A bench of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Jaoymalya Bagchi verbally remarked that the police have so far shown only reluctance in their probe.
During there hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati representing Ghaziabad police informed the Court that a fresh chargesheet has been filed in the matter by the police where it has invoked the accusations of rape under the BNS (erstwhile IPC) and of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act in compliance with the Court’s earlier order where it had slammed the authorities for their mishandling and indifference in the probe. The ASG also asked the Court if it wanted the Ghaziabad police to carry out further investigation in the matter.
However, the Court expressed serious doubts on the police officials’ conduct in the matter and stated that it will examine the fresh chargesheet first, and then see what would be a fitting mode of investigation to be carried out in the matter.
“No, no, the question is who will carry out further investigation. We have serious doubts on bona fide, but today we don’t want to comment on anything, and if the chargesheet is valid, then it will be a problem, so we have to be careful what we say today. We will not comment on ACP. They are reluctant to file the FIR. They are reluctant to assist the Court,” the CJI remarked.
The ASG also informed the Court that the Ghaziabad ACP and the SHO of Nandnagri police station had appeared in person before the Court in compliance of courts earlier order.
The Court, however, did not question the police officials and stated its indifference towards their appearance. The CJI said, “If they want to appear, it’s fine. Even if they don’t appear, it’s fine. It is unfortunate. If they want to invite stricter orders, we will not hesitate”, the Court said.
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, appearing on behalf of the deceased victims’ father, argued that the investigation is incomplete and attempts to shield the hospitals involved. He pointed out that no notice has been served to the hospitals and crucial facts, such as whether the child was still breathing in the final hours, remain unverified. He stressed that available video evidence appears inconsistent with the police version.
“If you see the status report, they are trying to shield the Hospitals – they have not served a hospital notice. Fact about child was breathing in the final hours is not confirmed. Police say something – the video on record shows something else”, Hariharan contended.
He contended that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) is necessary and that hospitals could be criminally liable for refusing treatment. According to him, timely medical aid might have saved the child’s life and failure to provide treatment attracts penal consequences.
“When child was alive, two hospitals had discretion to deny admission… Here, offences are committed against the hospital. Aid may have been given the child could have been saved. We have lost a life because medical intervention didn’t happen. There are penal provisions…” the senior lawyer added.
Hariharan further argued that serious offences like murder or culpable homicide could apply if there was deliberate inaction by the hospitals. He also highlighted delays in lodging the FIR and alleged harassment of the victim’s father by the police.
“Sections 302 – 304 would be attracted… they deliberately didn’t try to save the child. The day report is trying to be lodged by the victim’s father, but he gets beaten up by the police… He’s receiving threats…” he said.
The Court clarified that, at this stage, it is focused on examining the prosecution’s case based on the fresh chargesheet filed. Justice Bagchi noted that alleged hospital liability is not presently part of the prosecution but acknowledged the seriousness of the issue.
“That’s not part of prosecution. It is quite distressing… denial by hospitals… but it would violate Article 21… that would be a tort,” Justice Bagchi said.
The bench assured that the issue of hospital negligence or liability would be examined separately, without prejudging it in the current proceedings.
“We will examine that aspect separately — now we are in prosecution”, the bench expressed.
The CJI noted that the Court will first scrutinise the fresh chargesheet, including the video evidence referenced in it, and then decide whether further investigation or an SIT is required.
“Let us just examine the chargesheet. The law will never be able to fall short if the victims…If there are lapses, we’ll think of SIT… if a chargesheet is already filed and another kind of probe is needed, then we will evolve that also”, the CJI said.
The Court also made it clear that it is not absolving the hospitals and will consider those concerns independently.
“Do not think that we are exonerating the hospitals. We will examine those issues as well,” the Court said. (ANI)