The Court had come down heavily on the Ghaziabad police for what it termed complete indifference and insensitivity in the initial investigation, pointing out delays in registering the FIR. Archive | Photo Credit: Shashi Shekhar Kashyap
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 17, 2026) came down heavily on a private hospital and its doctor for allegedly refusing to provide emergency treatment to a four-year-old rape victim, who later succumbed to her injuries in a rape and murder case in Ghaziabad.
Terming his conduct as ruthless, ruthless and callous, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, questioned the doctor’s medical ethics and warned the hospital that if it imposed monetary penalty for his conduct, it would have a chilling effect.
“You don’t have to write ‘doctor’ with your name if you don’t do your duty. If you had any sensitivity, you would have gone with the girl to another hospital if you didn’t have the facilities. Did you ignore her because she was poor? Couldn’t you pay your fees?” the court told the hospital’s lawyer.
The Court added that any doctor faced with such a situation would be expected to ensure that the child received immediate medical assistance. “A girl victim of such a heinous crime is brought before you and you are so ruthless that you did not provide her with medical attention. If you had any empathy, you yourselves would have taken her to the hospital,” the CJI said.
Blatant flaws in the investigation
The CJI then warned the hospital about the possible consequences of its conduct. The Court’s comments came as it continued hearing the case arising out of the alleged rape and murder of the four-year-old girl in Ghaziabad. The Court has indicated that it will address the matter next week, preferably on Tuesday (July 21).
In the previous hearing, the Court had come down heavily on the Ghaziabad police for what it termed complete indifference and insensitivity in the initial investigation, pointing out delays in registration of the FIR, failure to initially invoke the offenses of rape and POCSO despite injuries recorded in the post-mortem report, and several other medical and investigative failures.
Pointing out glaring lapses in the investigation, the Court had directed the Ghaziabad Police Commissioner and the SHO of Nandgram Police Station to remain personally present before it to explain the sequence of events. The Court had observed that the FIR was registered only a day after the incident, even though the victim was a four-year-old child. Referring to the post-mortem report, the Court observed that it recorded injuries on the boy’s private parts that suggested an assault with a blunt object.
Also read: SC uses special powers to quash POCSO conviction to allow couple to live ‘peacefully’ as spouses
Despite these findings, the police initially investigated the matter only as a murder case, leading the Court to observe that “no proper investigation has so far been carried out” and that there appeared to be a “secret approach” surrounding the incident. During an earlier hearing, the Court had also questioned why the police had initially invoked only crimes related to murder and destruction of evidence. He noted that despite apparent indications of sexual assault, initially no offenses were registered under the POCSO Act or rape provisions.
Published – Jul 17, 2026 03:04 pm IST
