"You Are Merciless, Drop Doctor from Your Name", Supreme Court Slams Ayurvedic Doctor Who Denied Treatment To 4-Year-Old Ghaziabad Rape Victim

Supreme Court pulls up doctor for denied treatment to 4-year-old rape victim, directs it to provide compensation to the victim's family.
The Supreme Court today came down heavily on an Ayurvedic doctor who denied medical care to a child rape victim in Ghaziabad in March this year.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing a plea by the father of a rape and murder victim who was four-years-old girl raising serious lapses in investigation and the medical response in the case.
"A child is brought before you, and you are so merciless, you did not provide medical care. If you had any empathy, you would have taken her to the hospital yourself," the Court told the doctor. "When we impose penalty, it will have a chilling effect. It will be victim compensation and a reasonable compensation to the family. You have acted in the most ruthless manner," CJI Kant added.
In April this year, court directed the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the rape and murder case.
Expressing concern over the handling of the case, the Court had ordered the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, to constitute an SIT comprising senior women police officers. The team is to be headed by an officer of the rank of Commissioner or Inspector General of Police, assisted by a Superintendent of Police (or Additional SP) and a Deputy SP or Inspector, all women officers. The Court directed that the SIT be notified immediately and begin investigation without delay.
The Bench observed that the victim’s parents were dissatisfied with the investigation carried out by the Ghaziabad police. It also noted that, given the “barbaric” nature of the offence, the matter warranted prompt and sensitive handling, which appeared lacking.
Importantly, the SIT has been tasked with examining all grievances raised by the victim’s family, including concerns regarding the protection of key witnesses. It will also investigate the role of two private hospitals that allegedly refused to admit the child when she was still alive and in urgent need of medical care. The Court underscored that the conduct of the hospitals must be independently scrutinised.
The SIT has been directed to complete its investigation expeditiously, preferably within two weeks, and submit a supplementary report before the trial court. Until then, the ongoing trial proceedings have been kept in abeyance.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, appearing for the victim’s parents, had raised concerns over the conduct of the police. He alleged that despite claims of a completed investigation, the victim’s father was recently coerced into recording a statement under Section 164 CrPC, suggesting procedural irregularities. He also expressed apprehension that attempts were being made to shield the private hospitals involved.
On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, representing the State of Uttar Pradesh, had submitted that a chargesheet had already been filed and cognisance taken against the main accused. She maintained that the father’s statement was necessary as part of the prosecution process.
The Court, however, refrained from commenting on the merits of these allegations, instead focusing on ensuring a fair and comprehensive probe. It observed that if there were concerns regarding the prosecution, the victim’s family could engage independent legal representation before the trial court.
The case pertains to an incident on March 16, when the child was allegedly lured by a neighbour on the pretext of offering chocolates. She was later found grievously injured and was declared dead at a government hospital after reportedly being denied treatment at two private facilities. Notably, the Court had earlier flagged the reluctance of the local police to promptly register an FIR and criticised the “insensitive approach” adopted during the investigation.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Mohana
Hearing Date: July 17, 2026
