"Secondary Victimization Of Child": Apex Court Criticises Police For Downgrading Of POCSO Charges In Gurugram 4-Year-Old Sexual Assault Case

In a scathing indictment of institutional failure and "secondary victimization," the Supreme Court of India has stripped the Gurugram Police of their investigative powers in the sexual assault case of a four-year-old girl, ordering the immediate formation of a high-level Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by senior women IPS officers.

The Court expressed fury over the "heights of insensitivity" displayed by the local police, who allegedly downgraded the charges from Section 6 (Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault) to Section 10 of the POCSO Act to protect the accused.

Characterizing the state’s conduct as "shameful," the Court disassociated the Gurugram Police Commissioner and all involved officials from the probe, issued show-cause notices for disciplinary action against them, and ordered a specialized inquiry into the professional qualifications of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) members and the conduct of the medical professional who allegedly altered her report.

Previously, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, and the Investigating Officer to appear personally with the entire case record regarding the alleged sexual assault of a 4-year-old girl in Gurugram.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi observed, "The conduct of CWC Members, as can seen from the Report, compounded that optimization. The entire police force from commissioner to the sub inspector made all attempts to prove that child has no proof or the parents did not make any sense. There is no room of doubt that an offence on section 6 POCSO was apparently committed. The police however registered the FIR and downgraded the offence under section 10 due to undisclosed reasons...When it was reported by media that this court is taking cognizance, a new stand has been devised on the pretext that after victims father's representation the facts were reverified on March 12, 2026. Since the occurence/incident requires a deep probe, it seems to us that the incident has to be thoroughly investigated in a most sensitive manner with complete human approach maintaining dignity of the child and her parents."

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the Petitioners, while ASG Aishwarya Singh Bhati appeared for the State of Haryana.

The Court further ordered, "Unfortunately, the learned judicial magistrate before the child was produced despite acknowledging the response received... Failed to ensure that the case was investigated on prima facie basis that offence under Section 6 was committed...This is a glaring case where the accused was sought to be protected. We have serious doubts about the academic and professional qualifications of the CWC members to render any assistance to the investigative agency in such cases. We directed the CWC members to render an explanation about their February 6, 2026 report within a week. We direct Principal Secretary Ministry of Women and Child of State of Haryana to furnish reasons for appointing the said members. Affidavit to be filed within one week. Senior officer shall produce original record."

The Bench was hearing an Article 32 petition before the bench seeking to list the matter as soon as possible. The plea was filed concerning an alleged heinous sexual assault of a 4 year old girl by her own maids and a male accomplice (husband of one of the maids) wherein an FIR stood registered at Police Station Sector 53, Gurugram, Haryana under Section 6 and 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 65(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The Court further directed, "In order to ensure a fair probe. We constitute a team of- Director General of Police Madhuban, IPS Nazneen, presently posted as IGP South Range Rewadi, Dr Anshu Shungla, IPS. SIT is directed to take over the investigation from the Gurugram police. Let the State notify the formation of the SIT. Let the police hand over the entire report to the SIT by tomorrow. Commissioner of Gurugram Police and all other police officials named in para 27 shall be disassociated with the probe."

Justice Bagchi said, "Have you seen the Status Report? How can the offence be reduced from Section 6 to Section 10?...If this is quality of understanding sensitivity of an offence on a 3-year old child, what do you expect of rule of law?"

Justice Bagchi asked ASG Singh to read the status report.

Justice Bagchi remarked, "It is distressing to say that the highest police officers in the State taking a stance with that sort of assertion to bring down an offence from Section 6 to Section 10...The child has gone more horrifying experience than what had happened with her because of these people...this is a form of secondary victimization."

CJI Kant said, "This is the second repeated victimization of which I don't...You are disbelieving the innocence of a less than four year old child by using these methods of CCTV does not show, this is not found, auto side is not found, this is not found, etc...This is way you have been taught...shame on them. If the State has any respect for law, they must be immediately transferred from there, otherwise, you will face the consequences...For 15 days you have not done anything. Moment we take cognizance you start arresting. Do you want us to tell you why you were busy ? This case exhibits the heights of insensitivity. Who are the CWC members ? Who appoints them and what is their qualification? they (CWC Members) have not gone to the house, they have called the child there...why he can't go?....this officer is arrested for corruption charges...this is the kind of people they are posting?...all documents disclosing identity of the child has been pasted everywhere in the affidavit. Whole day we teach don't disclose the victim identity."

All police officials named in the status report—from the senior-most level to the field officers—have been directed to explain why disciplinary action should not be initiated against them for their "lackadaisical" and "insensitive" handling of the investigation. The Court specifically noted that the police’s attempt to downgrade the charges and their failure to make timely arrests warranted a formal inquiry into their conduct.

The Court’s scrutiny also extended to the medical and administrative professionals involved in the early stages of the case. Dr. Babita Jain of Max Hospital has been ordered to show cause as to why she allegedly changed her initial medical report. Similarly, the members of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) are required to provide a formal explanation as to why they should not be removed from their posts immediately. The Bench expressed severe doubts regarding the CWC’s professional qualifications and their decision to subject the toddler to "secondary victimization" through improper counseling procedures.

The Supreme Court has directed that all future proceedings in the lower court be listed before a senior woman judicial officer of the POCSO Court. This ensures that the trial and any related legal actions are handled with the specialized sensitivity required for a three-year-old victim.

The State of Haryana filed its Status Report and submitted that the police’s defence against allegations of inaction. According to the Report, the investigation officially began on February 2, 2026, when a Lady Duty Officer first met with the family at Max Hospital. The police claimed that while they were ready to proceed immediately, the child’s father requested more time to discuss the matter with the victim before filing a formal complaint. The FIR was subsequently registered on February 4, 2026, at Police Station Sector-53, Gurugram, under the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

It said, "That on the basis of the material available on record, it transpired that no offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act had been found to be committed, however, offence punishable by the provisions of Section 10 of POCSO Act was found and accordingly, the Section 6 of the POCSO Act was dropped and Section 10 of POCSO Act was added. Also, the offence punishable under Section 115(2) and 137(2) of BNS were added to the case."

Regarding the technical and forensic aspects of the probe, the report stated that a crime scene team and forensic experts inspected a specific room within the residential society identified by the child. During this process, forensic evidence was collected, and the victim underwent a Medico-Legal Examination (MLC). Furthermore, the police seized hard disks containing 15 days of CCTV footage from the society. 

The status report also detailed the steps taken to verify the child's claims through specialized counseling. In response to the Supreme Court's concerns regarding the sensitivity of the investigation, the Commissioner provided a comprehensive list of 22 women IPS officers currently serving in the Haryana police cadre. The report concluded by asserting that the case has been under regular review by senior officials and that all legal protocols for handling a minor victim were followed.

Previously, it was also submitted that during proceedings before the Magistrate, the child was made to wait in a small room for approximately 15–20 minutes prior to recording her statement, which caused visible anxiety. The Magistrate repeatedly emphasized (approximately five times) that the child must “speak the truth” (“sach bolna hai aapko”), despite being informed that the child, being only 3 years old, does not understand the concept of oath or court proceedings.

On Saturday, Gurgaon police arrested three individuals—including two domestic workers—for the sexual assault of a three-year-old child at a high-rise residential complex. The arrests follow a significant escalation by the victim's parents, who filed the present matter in the Court seeking to transfer the investigation from local police to the CBI.

It was the case of the Petitioner that in early February 2026, a three-year-old girl made a series of "spontaneous disclosures" to her parents. Using the limited vocabulary of a toddler, she described being taken by two known domestic helpers to a "stranger" with "monster eyes." She recounted being given a "fried lollipop" that she found unpleasant and described the male perpetrator hurting her while the domestic workers watched or assisted.

It was submitted that despite the gravity of the crime and the child identifying the suspects on four separate occasions—including once at the police station and once before a Magistrate—local authorities failed to make any arrests for over 40 days. It was also submitted that the initial Investigating Officer reportedly attempted to discourage the parents from filing an FIR, suggesting the child would eventually forget the incident while warning that a legal probe would make the family's life "hell." This same officer was later arrested on unrelated corruption charges for allegedly seeking a bribe to close a different sexual harassment case. Furthermore, the petition alleged that crucial evidence, such as forensic samples from the identified crime scene and CCTV footage from the apartment complex, was never properly secured or analyzed.

The plea stated that, contrary to the child-friendly mandates of the POCSO Act, the toddler was subjected to repeated, gruelling questioning sessions and long waits at the police station. It was also alleged that during her statement to a Magistrate, she was reportedly asked highly inappropriate and leading questions regarding the physical details of the assault, which left her visibly anxious and distressed. The parents contended that the local police have shown a total lack of urgency, failing to even trace the unidentified male perpetrator or conduct custodial interrogations of the named suspects.

Cause Title: XXXX v. State of Haryana [Diary No. 16792/2026]

Appearances: 

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, Advocates Abhimanyu Bhandari, Vaibhav Mishra, Namsiha Gupta, Pranay Shridhar Chitale, Parth Sarathi, Aditya Dutta, Ekansh Mishra and Kartika Sharma.