Inhuman & Insensitive Approach Of Private Hospitals & Police: Supreme Court Summons Commissioner For Investigative Lapses In Alleged Ghaziabad's 4-Year-Old Rape-Murder Case

The Supreme Court has directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, and the SHO of Nandgram Police Station to appear personally following allegations of systemic investigative lapses and custodial torture in the death of a four-year-old girl in District Nandgram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.

The Court expressed "complete shock" over reports that the victim was denied emergency admission by two private hospitals while still alive and that the local police subsequently assaulted the grieving family to coerce silence.

The Court questioned the State on why charges under the POCSO Act were omitted despite postmortem findings indicating sexual violence, and raised serious concerns over a "suspicious" police report claiming the accused sustained gunshot injuries after firing at officers while in custody.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi observed, "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. On March 16, 2026, the neighbour (the accused) reached home and took the four-year-old victim with him on the pretext of buying her a chocolate. When they did not return home on time, the petitioner, his elder son, and another neighbour went to search for the daughter. They reached the field behind the Tejram School and saw the accused emerging. He told them the victim was still in the fields. The petitioner found the child lying unconscious and covered in blood. He sent her to a private hospital, where the doctor accused him. He thereafter took her to another private hospital, where the victim was also denied admission. Finally, the child was taken to MMG District Hospital, Ghaziabad—a government hospital—where she was declared dead on arrival."

Senior Advocate N Hariharan appeared for the Petitioner-father.

The Court added, "The trauma of the petitioner and his family members was further compounded when they reported the matter to the local police station. Instead of taking cognizance of such a horrible offence and trauma, the petitioner and his family members were allegedly locked up and physically assaulted. According to the petition, even his wife was not spared. They were told to remain silent about the incident...FIR 129/2026 was registered under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). More shockingly, no offense was registered under the POCSO Act or Section 376 of the IPC, even though it was an apparent case of sexual assault. The petitioner and his family have lost faith."

Senior Advocate Hariharan submitted, "The current status is that the FIR has been registered and the postmortem conducted, but an arrest has also been effected. Now the difficulty is, My Lord, they are shielding the hospitals. The child was, at that point in time, alive. Two hospitals refused admission to the child. This is a matter of grave concern, especially after directions were given by this Court."

He added, "Furthermore, My Lord, I have something else very grave to point out. The FIR was registered one day after the incident. On March 16th, the postmortem of the child was already available to the police. When Your Lordship looks into the postmortem—which I have annexed to my petition—it shows injuries to the private parts. It appears a blunt object was inserted into the private parts, which could even have been a reproductive organ. No inquiry has been directed toward that, not even by the postmortem doctor; he offered no opinion in relation to it. They are investigating the offence as if it were only a case of murder."

 He submitted that the FIR was registered a day late and claimed the child was dead when reported, contradicting video evidence captured by villagers showing her alive during the rescue. Despite postmortem findings indicating injuries caused by a blunt object in the child's private parts, the police initially registered the case as a simple murder under Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), omitting charges under the POCSO Act, it was argued.

"If Your Lordship sees the FIR, they proclaim that the child was dead at the time the report reached them. This is contrary to the facts, as the FIR does not provide a true reflection of the circumstances at the time they investigated. There is a video recording made by the villagers showing the child was alive. A man picked up the child and rushed to the hospital; that video recording is available, but the police are refusing to accept it. Instead, they have served notices under Section 130 to all those neighbours, claiming they are breaching the peace. This is the manner in which the whole thing is being handled. There is a "hush-hush" operation going on. Regarding the four-year-old child, if Your Lordship sees the video recording in my possession—Your Lordship can just have a look—it is ghastly, to say the least. My conscience was revolted the moment I saw it. Can we place it before the Bench? Your Lordship will see the child was alive. This evidence is not being included in the investigation. This occurred in Uttar Pradesh", he said.

The tragedy began on March 16, 2026, when a neighbor allegedly lured the young victim away from her home on the pretext of buying her chocolate. When she failed to return, her family discovered her unconscious and covered in blood in a field behind a local school. What followed was a systemic failure of the medical infrastructure. Senior Advocate Hariharan, representing the family, noted that the child was alive at the time of discovery. However: 1. Two private hospitals refused to admit her, despite the urgency of her condition. 2The child was finally taken to MMG District Hospital, where she was declared dead on arrival.

The Court expressed "complete shock" at the "inhuman and insensitive approach" of these private institutions, which allegedly ignored judicial directions regarding emergency care.

It was directed, "The Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to file a Status Report. The Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, is directed to be present in court along with all original reports. The SHO of Police Station Nandgram shall also be present. The police authorities are, meanwhile, directed to effect service of notice on the private hospitals listed as Respondents 3 and 4. There is no need to issue notice to Respondent 6 at this stage. Police authorities and the hospitals are directed to ensure that the identity of the victim child—and, to the extent possible, the identity of her family members—is not disclosed. They are further directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner, his family members, or the witnesses."

Hariharan said that the family is feeling very harassed there; he is finding it difficult. He stated that every time he moves out, they summon him to the police station and harass him, saying he should withdraw the case. "As a poor laborer, how will he withstand this?",  he said.

The Standing Counsel for UP then submitted that the chargesheet has been filed in the matter.

CJI Kant remarked, "That is your expertise. You have an expertise in this kind of thing. You do whatever hanky-panky you want to do, and then you file a chargesheet."

Justice Bagchi asked the State of UP," How was a person in custody carrying a gun, sir? According to you, the accused made a disclosure statement while in custody. When you took him to the field to recover his so-called handkerchief, he produced a gun and fired at the police, and you fired back? Please look into it. Page 55 contains a very interesting police report regarding how the accused suffered gunshot injuries while in your custody. You should be apprised by your clients—the police—as to the developments of the investigation. If not, please seek advice."

Accordingly, the matter is now listed for a further date.

Cause Title: Rinku v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [W.P.(Crl.) No. 139/2026]