'Eyeopener For Whole Country': Supreme Court on Gurugram 4-yr-old's Rape Case

While hearing the case concerning the sexual assault of a four-year-old in Gurugram, the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Monday said that the case was an eye-opener for the entire country.

"This case is an eye-opener for the whole country. We want the investigation to be completed smoothly. There are other issues that we will deal with later," CJI Kant said.

The SIT, which was directed to be constituted on the last date of hearing, informed the court that it required two weeks to obtain forensic test results and record witness statements. Court accordingly extended the time and directed the SIT to maintain utmost sensitivity while interacting with the child witness.

On a request being made by the SIT to interact with the child victim, the bench said, “We do not want any further psychological impact on the child. Have a cup of tea with the parents. Go in civilian dress and nobody should disclose who they are.” Court also directed the Director, AIIMS to spare a child psychologist or counsellor to be present when SIT meets the victim.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the victim’s parents, urged court that until the SIT concludes the probe, the accused should not receive bail. The court accordingly ordered, “Since the issues as to the nature of offence alleged to be committed on the victim is yet to be prima facie determined by the SIT, the trial court is directed to defer bail applications by the accused till the charge sheet is filed.”

On March 25, Court had come down heavily on Gurugram Police for its conduct in the investigation into a four-year-old’s sexual assault case and stated that the conduct of officers with the child and her parents reflected “heights of insensivity". It had criticised the police for cross-examining the child in the “worst form of secondary victimisation" and “disrespect".

It further asked why should action not be taken against the officials, over their “all-out” efforts to protect the accused. “It's a glaring case where police has made all-out efforts to protect accused. Unwarranted report submitted...We doubt academic or professional qualifications or their ability to render any valuable assistance in such matters,” the Supreme Court had said. Haryana government was accordingly directed to expeditiously notify the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to take over the investigation while asking Gurugram Police to hand over case records.

Earlier, court had directed the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, and the Investigating Officer in a case concerning the alleged sexual assault of a 4-year-old girl in Gurugram to appear personally with the entire case record.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohati had 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.

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 amount 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.

Case Title: XXX vs. State of Haryana

Bench: CJI Kant, Justice Bagchi

Hearing Date: April 6, 2026