The Madras High Court (HC) on Tuesday, October 1, transferred the Anna Nagar child rape case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). In a serious transgression of legal procedures, an audio clip of the 10-year-old child rape survivor recording her statement to the Chennai police had been leaked on social media platforms. The audio clip also revealed the identity of the child. The Chennai police also showed extraordinary haste and reportedly took the hospitalised child’s statement at 10.30 pm, showing absolute disregard for the child’s welfare. The court noted that the police’s action is in violation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Section 24 (protecting the child’s identity).

A division bench comprising Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam came down heavily on the police for ill-treating the survivor and the survivor's parents, who said that they were assaulted by the Anna Nagar All Women’s Police Station (AWPS) Inspector Rajeev while trying to report the crime.

Transferring the case to the CBI, the court held that the disputed facts in the case should be investigated further and directed them “to initiate all appropriate action in the manner known to law.”

The 10-year-old was taken to a hospital after she fell sick on August 29, where the doctors had informed one of the parents that the child had been raped. The survivor had first named her neighbour Satish, a 30-year-old water can supplier, as the accused. The survivor’s mother filed a complaint against Satish with the Anna Nagar All Women’s Police Station (AWPS), who lodged an FIR on August 30. Satish was booked under Sections 5(i), 5(m), and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. 

However, according to the police, the survivor later changed her statement and named a minor boy, who is related to her, as having sexually assaulted her two years ago. But the mother of the survivor told TNM that the survivor had been threatened by Rajeev to change her statement. 

The police also didn’t arrest Satish by claiming that there wasn’t enough evidence. However, after the incident was reported in the media, Satish was arrested. Noting that the arrest was delayed by almost two weeks, the bench said that the police were probably forced to act after the media reported the incident. 

Read: Child rape survivor's audio statement leaked: Did Chennai cops violate protocol?

The audio clip where the child changes her statement and names a minor instead had been circulated on social media platforms since September 8. While an FIR was filed against journalist A Selvaraj and YouTuber Maridhas for sharing the audio clips on social media platforms, the bench asked why an FIR has not been filed against the AWPS inspector for having recorded the audio statement of the child on her personal mobile phone. The court held that the police should nab the person from within the department who first leaked the audio clip.

“The police is expected to find the root cause for publication and nab the persons who disclosed the information. The practice of registering cases against journalists and YouTubers who are all vindicating the grievances in the public domain is not in consonance with the democratic principles enunciated in the constitution,” the bench said.