“What Kind of Investigation Is This?”: Jharkhand HC Questions Delay in Arrest in Child Rape-Murder Case

The Jharkhand High Court on Monday took suo-motu cognizance of a deeply disturbing incident involving the alleged rape and brutal murder of a 12 year old girl in Hazaribagh district, expressing serious concern over the apparent inaction and lapses in investigation by the local police.

Observing that even five days after registration of the FIR no arrests had been made and crucial forensic steps had not been taken, the Court flagged what it described as a “lethargic” approach by the investigating authorities in a case of grave and heinous nature.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary directed issuance of notice to the Secretary, Home Department, Director General of Police, Jharkhand, and Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, calling for affidavits explaining the lapses in investigation.

The Court further directed the DGP to specifically clarify why crucial samples collected in the case had not yet been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), and why they continued to remain in the custody of the investigating officer.

The Bench also underscored that the safety of the victim’s family and witnesses is paramount, warning that any untoward incident would attract personal accountability of the Superintendent of Police.

The proceedings were initiated after the Court’s attention was drawn to a newspaper report published on 29.03.2026, detailing the alleged crime.

According to the report, the incident occurred on 24.03.2026, with an FIR lodged the following day.

The allegations included not only sexual assault but also extreme brutality, including mutilation and fatal injuries inflicted upon the minor victim.

The amicus curiae informed the Court that despite the gravity of the offence, no accused had been apprehended, and the victim’s mother was allegedly being threatened, raising concerns of evidence tampering and intimidation.

Taking note of the seriousness of the allegations and the need for urgent judicial oversight, the Court directed its office to register the matter as a public interest litigation on its own motion.

During the hearing, the Member Secretary of the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) informed the Court that the District Legal Services Authority had intervened promptly after the incident came to light and had requested the police to initiate investigation without delay.

The Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh, appeared before the Court via video conferencing and stated that efforts were ongoing to identify and apprehend the culprits, including the use of technical analysis such as mobile location tracking.

However, when questioned by the Bench, the SP admitted that no arrests had been made thus far.

The Court expressed dissatisfaction with this explanation, remarking that in a case of such gravity, failure to apprehend the accused even after several days raises serious questions about the effectiveness and urgency of the investigation.

The Bench also examined the procedural aspects of evidence collection.

While the SP confirmed that samples, including clothing and other materials, had been collected and that a post-mortem examination had been conducted with videography, it was revealed that the samples had not yet been sent to the FSL.

The reason cited was the need to obtain permission from the Court.

This explanation was contested during the proceedings, with submissions indicating that no such prior permission is required and that it falls within the domain of the investigating officer to promptly forward samples for forensic analysis.

The Court observed that retention of such critical evidence without timely forensic examination could create opportunities for manipulation and undermine the integrity of the investigation.

It concluded that the investigation had not been conducted in the manner expected in a case of this nature.

In addition to directing affidavits from senior state authorities, the Court instructed the Member Secretary of JHALSA to ensure coordination with the District Legal Services Authority and the investigating agency to prevent any tampering of evidence.

It also emphasized the necessity of protecting the victim’s family and key witnesses, recognizing the reported threats and vulnerability of those involved.

Before referring the matter to the Chief Justice for further listing, the Bench made it clear that the responsibility for ensuring the safety of the victim’s family rests squarely with the local police leadership.

The Court also directed that the newspaper report which triggered the proceedings be formally made part of the record.

The matter is now to be placed before the Chief Justice for further consideration.

Case Title: Court on its own Motion v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.

Bench: Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Date of Judgment: 30.03.2026