The Supreme Court has directed the Director General of Police to constitute a three-member, all-female Special Investigation Team (SIT) to take over the probe into the tragic death of a four-year-old girl in Ghaziabad.

The order follows harrowing submissions by the father of the deceased child, who alleged that local police "dragged" the victim’s father and used coercion to force his testimony to align with a disputed FIR.

Consequently, the Bench has stayed the ongoing trial, mandating the SIT to independently investigate the role of medical facilities and ensure the protection of vital witnesses within a two-week timeframe.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi observed, "We deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition with the following directions: The Director General of Police is directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising: i) A woman police officer in the rank of Commissioner of Police or IG/SP, who shall be of the UP cadre but not have roots in the state of UP. ii) One woman officer in the rank of SP/Additional SP. iii) One woman police officer in the rank of DSP or Inspector of Police. The victim shall be notified, preferably during the course of the day, but in any case by 11:00 PM tomorrow. The SIT will resume the investigation without delay, starting tomorrow. The SIT will look into all grievances raised on behalf of the parents of the victim, especially regarding the protection of crucial and vital witnesses."


Senior Advocate N Hariharan appeared for the Petitioner-father, whereas ASG Aishwarya Singh Bhati appeared for the State.

The Court ordered, "Similarly, the SIT is directed to investigate the role of the private hospitals. It goes without saying that, depending upon the outcome of the investigation, necessary consequences shall follow...Since we have directed a further investigation through the SIT, the trial court is directed to keep the proceedings in abeyance until a supplementary report is filed by the SIT. The SIT shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings as early as possible, preferably within two weeks."

The tragedy began on March 16, 2026, when a neighbour 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, two private hospitals refused to admit her, despite the urgency of her condition. The child was finally taken to MMG District Hospital, where she was declared dead on arrival.

The Court also said that after filing the supplementary report, a compliance affidavit shall be filed by the head of the SIT before the Secretary General and the Registrar's Division of this court. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the allegations or counter-allegations made by the parties. Such allegations, including the explanations and defences provided by the private hospitals, shall be independently examined by the SIT.

Hariharan submitted, "My lord, it is unfortunate. According to them, the investigations are complete. I learned yesterday evening that they have dragged the father and are trying to get a Section 164 statement recorded. The police are insisting that he stick to the statement made in the FIR. There is a telegram addressed to your lordship in relation to that; I do not know whether it has come on record."

"If they say that the investigation is complete, then why is there a question of recording a 164 statement? The idea is to shield the hospitals. Both hospitals have filed their affidavits. It can be seen from those affidavits that the child was alive. If this is going to be the state of investigations, my lord, I am very sorry to say. My lord, the father’s testimony was to be recorded yesterday. Why? You say the investigation is complete; you say the charge sheet has been filed. Now you are asking for a 164 to be recorded. The policeman can be seen dragging the person there. My lord, my colleague has not been informed properly. The trial has started. It was for recording his testimony. Your lordships have seen", he added.

ASG Bhati submitted, "My colleague was probably not aware when the writ was filed. The charge sheet has been filed, cognizance taken, and charges framed. If further investigation is required..."

Hariharan responded, "Information means that he was told by the police to stick to the statement given in the FIR. The father is standing right here. But this is in the course of trial. Please, my lord. If it is a matter of a trial, he will receive a summons. Is the police required to bring him forcefully and tell him to make this kind of statement? He is right here. He was dragged along by the police. Regarding the two hospitals, my lord, this is under seizure at the present point of time. Your lordships are seized of the matter."

Justice Bagchi remarked, "If your concern is that the police and the prosecutor are shielding the hospital, the victim's father can always be represented by his counsel in court during the deposition."

Hariharan said, "I agree. But my lord, is he required to be dragged for a deposition? Is the court not supposed to summon him? Can they show that they served a summons on him? This is going in a very different direction. Where is the need for coercion?... The investigating officers in this case are behaving in a very different fashion. Since investigations need to be directed toward the hospitals, they did not examine even a single person in the hospital. The nurse says in one affidavit that the child arrived alive. In the other affidavit, the hospital also confirms that the child was alive."

Previously, the Court had 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.

Accordingly, the matter was disposed of.

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

Tags: