Jharkhand High Court: Taking suo motu cognizance of the rape and brutal murder of a 12-year-old girl, the Division Bench of Sujit Narayan Prasad and Anubha Rawat Choudhary, JJ., emphasised that the lethargic attitude of the police warranted judicial intervention. The Court noted that despite the FIR, no arrest had been made even after 5 days, and prime evidence had not been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The Court held that accountability of senior officials and protection of the victim’s family were necessary and issued directions accordingly.
Background
The incident occurred on 24 March 2026 in Hazaribagh District, where a minor girl was subjected to sexual assault and subsequently murdered. An FIR was lodged on 25 March 2026, but no arrest was made even after several days. The victim’s mother, employed at a brick kiln, was being threatened and coerced, with attempts to tamper with evidence.
The matter came to the Court’s attention through a newspaper report, which highlighted the incident and the lack of effective police action. It was contended that despite the FIR, the police failed to apprehend the culprit, and the investigation was not progressing effectively. The investigating officer wrongly insisted on seeking permission before sending collected samples to the FSL, whereas it was his duty to forward them immediately to prevent manipulation.
Analysis and Decision
The Court emphasised that, considering the sensitivity of the issue, particularly the commission of rape of a female child aged about 12 years and thereafter her brutal murder, along with the lethargic attitude of the police, it was proper to take cognizance of the occurrence.
The Court noted that, even after the lapse of 5 days, the culprit had not been arrested. The Court highlighted that keeping the samples in the possession of the investigating officer indicated that the investigating officer was not properly proceeding. It was further observed that the investigation, which ought to have been conducted so as to get hold of the culprit, had not been conducted properly.
Accordingly, the Court directed issuance of notice to the Secretary, Home, the Director General of Police (DGP), State of Jharkhand, and the Superintendent of Police (SP), Hazaribagh, requiring them to file affidavits. The Court further directed the DGP to explain why the prime evidence had not been sent to the FSL.
The Court also instructed Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) to monitor the matter to prevent tampering of evidence. Importantly, the Court made it clear that if any untoward incident happened with the family members of the deceased victim or important witnesses, then it would be the personal accountability of the SP, Hazaribagh.
[Court on its own Motion v. State of Jharkhand, W.P. (PIL) No. 2172 of 2026, decided on 30-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Amicus Curiae: Hemant Shikarwar, Advocate
For the State: Sachin Kumar, AAG-II, Srikant Swaroop, AC to AAG-II, Gaurav Raj, AC to AAG-II
