4-yr Old Sexual Assault Case: Supreme Court Lambasts Haryana Police Over Insensitive Conduct

The Supreme Court has directed the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, and the Investigating Officer in a case concerning the alleged sexual assault of a 3.5-year-old girl in Gurugram to appear personally with the entire case record.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohati today appeared before a CJI Surya Kant led bench in an Article 32 petition concerning the heinous sexual assault of a 3.5 year old girl by her own maids and husband of one of the maids wherein an FIR was 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.

After hearing submissions made by Rohatgi, the bench also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi ordered, "Issue Notice. We direct the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram along with the Investigating Officer to remain present in court the day after tomorrow with the entire record. AAG to furnish details of woman officers in the Haryana police cadre. Statements of parents show a disturbing sequence of events. We direct the Registry to keep the affidavit of parents in the sealed over. The father's affidavit shall be sent through a special messenger to the District and Sessions Judge, Haryana. Let the comments of the Magistrate be furnished to this Court through a sealed envelope. Let us hear this case day after tomorrow...Police is at liberty to submit a status report."

Court was told that not a single arrest had been made by the police despite the 3.5-year old victim having identified the accused persons not once but on three occasions.

On February 1, 2026, the victim child had made spontaneous disclosures to her parents describing an incident involving a “stranger.” In her own words, she stated that a stranger gave her a “fried lollipop” with “snakes on it,” which she found unpleasant (“yuck”). She described the individual as having “monster eyes” and stated that she told him to stop, but that he hurt her.

Notably, on February 5, 2026, the child’s statement was recorded before the Magistrate Kimmi Singla, in which the child reaffirmed her identification of both female accused. "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," the Supreme Court has been told.

Court has further been told that the Investigating Officer (IO) repeatedly attempted to dissuade the mother from filing the FIR, stating that the child would eventually forget the incident, but if an FIR were lodged, “the next three years will be hell” for the family. This reflects an attempt to discourage lawful reporting of a serious offence.

The petition states continued failure of the State machinery to conduct a prompt and effective investigation into such a heinous offence against a child amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights of the victim and her family guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the guarantee of equal protection of the laws under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The inactions by the Police only gone to show that there seems to be consorted attempt by the police to protect the accused, the plea adds.

"Failure of the Police to promptly arrest or interrogate the identified accused, to trace the unidentified male accused, and to secure crucial evidence not only undermines the effectiveness of the investigation but also prolongs the child’s exposure to trauma. A child-friendly process under POCSO necessarily requires swift and decisive action so as to provide a sense of safety, closure, and justice to the victim. In the present case, the continued inaction and delay continue to keeping the child and her family in a state of fear and anxiety, thereby compounding the psychological harm already suffered. The absence of time-bound, sensitive investigation effectively converts the protective framework of POCSO into an additional source of distress," the petition submits.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, along with AOR Pranay Shridhar Chitale and Advocate Parth Sarathi, appeared for the Petitioners.

Case Title: XXX vs. State of Haryana

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi and Justice Pancholi

Hearing Date: March 23, 2026