Ghaziabad Child Rape-Murder Case: SC Proposes Guidelines, Hospitals Volunteer ₹12 Lakh After SIT Flags Treatment Lapses

The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana was hearing the case in which it had earlier constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) after expressing concern over the alleged failure of Uttar Pradesh authorities and the refusal of two private hospitals to provide timely treatment to the child.

Appearing as amicus curiae, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan submitted that the SIT report revealed serious negligence on the part of the hospitals. He argued that the first hospital failed to call the required specialists despite having the facility to do so and instead referred the child elsewhere. According to him, the second hospital, despite being a multi-speciality institution with adequate facilities, also failed to provide treatment.

Hariharan contended that timely medical intervention could have saved the child's life.

He further criticised the conduct of the police, submitting that the victim's family's complaint was not accurately recorded and that insensitive handling of such cases only aggravated the trauma suffered by victims.

Observing that the case reflected a larger systemic issue, the Bench remarked that there remained a significant gap between the law as enacted and its implementation on the ground.

The Court observed that police academies should conduct orientation and sensitisation programmes to ensure better handling of cases involving victims of sexual offences.

Hariharan urged the Court to issue comprehensive directions to medical institutions, arguing that hospitals must immediately report such cases and provide emergency treatment without delay. He described the explanations offered by the hospitals as wholly unacceptable.

The Bench agreed that positive directions were required and invited suggestions from the amicus on bridging the gap between the statutory framework and its implementation.

Referring to the importance of immediate medical care, Hariharan pointed out that while heart attack victims benefit from the "golden hour," the four-year-old child in the present case remained without effective treatment for nearly five hours after suffering severe injuries.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that timely medical intervention could substantially improve survival rates in several critical cases, including burn injuries, underscoring the importance of prompt treatment.

During the hearing, the Court asked representatives of the two hospitals whether they were willing to compensate the victim's family. Counsel appearing for the hospitals submitted that the payment may be treated as a voluntary contribution rather than compensation, considering the pending criminal proceedings.

Recording the statement, the Supreme Court noted that St. Joseph Mariam Hospital, Ghaziabad had voluntarily agreed to pay ₹10 lakh, while the second hospital agreed to contribute ₹2 lakh to the victim's family. The Court directed that the amount be paid through demand drafts within four weeks.

The Bench further indicated that it was inclined to issue guidelines to ensure timely medical care and proper institutional response in cases involving child victims of sexual offences.

Background of the Case