Supreme Court Slams Ghaziabad Police Over Faulty Probe In Rape-Murder Of 4 Yr Old, Flags Hospitals' Lapses
The victim's family alleged that they were being pressured to withdraw the case.
The Supreme Court on Friday directed the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, to appear in person on Monday in a case concerning the rape and murder of a 4-year-old child, flagging the failure of the police to invoke sexual assault provisions and the refusal of two private hospitals to treat the child when she was still alive.
A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that the conduct of the private hospitals as well as the local police was inhuman and insensitive.
“This case also exhibits complete indifferent, inhuman and insensitive approach of two private hospitals as well as the local police”, the Court observed.
The Court passed the order in a writ petition filed by the victim's father alleging that the victim's family was being harassed by the police to withdraw the case.
“Family members' trauma was further confirmed when they reported the matter to the local police station. Instead of taking cognizance of such an horrible offence, the petitioner and his family members were allegedly locked up and physically assaulted. Even the petitioner's wife was not spared. They were asked to remain silent about the incident”, the Court recorded.
The petition seeks transfer of investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation or a Special Investigation Team for a time-bound probe, along with action against police officials for alleged assault and intimidation, and against the hospitals for refusing treatment.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate N Hariharan for the petitioner submitted that although an FIR had been registered and an arrest had been made, the police were shielding the hospitals which had refused treatment when the child was still alive. He submitted that two hospitals denied admission despite the child being in a critical condition.
He further contended that although the post-mortem report recorded injuries to the private parts, the police registered the FIR only for murder under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 along with Section 238(a) BNS, which corresponds to Section 201 IPC (causing disappearance of evidence).
No offence relating to rape under Section 376 IPC or provisions under the POCSO Act were invoked, he said. He further submitted that video footage existed showing the child breathing after the incident, but the police had refused to consider it.
As per the petition, on March 16, 2026 the petitioner's neighbour allegedly took the child from her home on the pretext of buying her a chocolate. When she did not return, the petitioner searched for her and found her lying unconscious in a field with injuries and covered in blood.
The petition states that the child was first taken to Khajan Singh Manvi Health Care, where treatment was refused. She was then taken to St. Joseph (Mariam) Hospital, which also denied admission. She was eventually taken to MMG District Hospital, Ghaziabad, where she was declared brought dead.
The petitioner (victim's father) has alleged that when he approached the police station to report the incident, he and his family members were locked up and physically assaulted. His wife was also beaten. They were allegedly threatened not to approach the media as it could affect upcoming elections.
The petition states that notices under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 were issued to neighbours in order to to pressure them. The petition claims that the investigation was perfunctory, with material evidence being withheld.
After noting the circumstances, the Court indicated that a court-monitored, time-bound investigation by a Special Investigation Team or a central agency may be required.
“The prisoner and his family, the process, have lost faith in the local police as well as the 2 private hospitals. We have also seen the Panchanama dated 17th March 2026. This does not record whether the victim child was wearing any clothes on the lower part of her body, but it does report that her private parts were injured and bleeding. A postmortem report reveals that there were several wounds and blood on the private parts along with various injuries in the head and other parts of the body were born. The doctor who conducted postmortem. Also, unfortunately, failed to record the brutal sexual assault on the crime, aggravating sexual assault on the crime. The facts and circumference of the case shock the conscience of the court”, the Court further stated.
It listed the matter for further hearing on Monday, directing the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, and the Investigating Officer to remain present along with original records.
“Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad is directed to remain present in court along with all original reports. The SHO Police Station, Nandgram, shall also remain present”, the Court stated.
The Court also directed that no coercive action be taken against the child's father, his family members or witnesses, and that the identity of the victim and her family be protected.
The Court also questioned the circumstances in which the accused sustained gunshot injuries while in police custody. The police has claimed that the accused fired at officers during recovery proceedings and was shot in response.
However, the Court questioned how a person in custody could be in possession of a firearm.
“How a person in custody was carrying a gun, Sir. The accused, according to you, in custody, made a disclosure statement and when you took him to the field to recover a so-called handkerchief, he brings out a gun and fires at your police and you fire back. Please look into it. It is a very, very interesting report of the police as to how the accused suffered gunshot injuries while in your custody”, Justice Bagchi said to the counsel appearing for state of UP.
After being informed that a charge sheet has been filed in the case, the CJI remarked, “You have an expertise in this kind of thing. You do whatever hanky panky you want to do and then you file a charge sheet.”
Case : W.P.(Crl.) No. 139/2026 | XXX Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH