20 October 2026 Legal Update

Absence of Injury Is No Ground to Deny Compensation to Victim of Penetrative Sexual Assault Under U.P. Mahila Samman Kosh Scheme; Steering Committee Cannot Conduct a Trial : Allahabad High Court

Case details

Case: X Rape Victim of Crime No. 576/2022 P.S. Sarojini Nagar, Lucknow, through her Father v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Women Welfare Department, Lucknow, and 3 Others (Writ - C No. 4927 of 2025)
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 3)
Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai (the order is signed by both and does not name an author)

Parties and proceedings (simplified)

Petitioner: the victim, a child sexually assaulted on 07.12.2022, acting through her father. Counsel: Shri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey.
Respondents: the State of U.P. through the Principal Secretary, Women Welfare Department, and three others, who are not named in the order. The decision under challenge is that of the District Steering Committee, Lucknow. Counsel: Shri Pankaj Khare, Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
Nature of proceeding: a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution complaining of inaction in paying compensation under the “Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015” (the Scheme).

Facts of the case

The victim was sexually assaulted on 07.12.2022 and the FIR was lodged the same day. The charge sheet was filed on 13.01.2023 and indicates penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
The petitioner relied on serial No. 6 of the Scheme's annexure. For victims covered by Section 4 of the POCSO Act it provides compensation of Rs. 3,00,000: Rs. 1,00,000 within 15 days of the FIR and the remaining Rs. 2,00,000 within one month of the charge sheet. The listed prerequisites are the FIR, an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault, and the charge sheet.
Despite the charge sheet, nothing had been paid. The District Steering Committee, Lucknow, kept the claim in abeyance, and the State placed on record the District Probation Officer's letter dated 01.03.2025 (in Hindi) explaining why.
The letter (translated from Hindi) says the Committee examined the FIR, the medical report and the charge sheet, noted that the nodal medical officers' final opinion did not support penetrative sexual assault, and unanimously declined compensation on medical grounds. It said the case would be placed before the Committee again if a supporting FSL report was later received.

Legal provisions and precedents

Sections 3 and 4, POCSO Act, 2012: Section 3 defines penetrative sexual assault in four clauses (penetration by the penis; insertion of an object or body part other than the penis; manipulation to cause penetration; and application of the mouth), each “to any extent”. Section 4 prescribes the punishment (a minimum of ten years, and twenty years where the child is below sixteen).
Scheme: the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, with serial No. 6 of its annexure (see above).
Precedents: Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttaranchal (Criminal Appeal No. 1005 of 2013, decided 16.01.2025) and Lok Mal @ Loku v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2011, decided 07.03.2025), both of the Supreme Court.

Issue before the Court

Whether compensation under the Scheme for a victim of penetrative sexual assault can be refused because the injury report does not show a penetrative injury, even though the FIR and charge sheet disclose an offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

Contentions

Petitioner: the charge sheet clearly indicates penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, yet not a single rupee had been paid.
State: the Steering Committee's decision was correct. The basic internal examination and pathological report showed no evidence of a “penetrating injury”, and the Scheme's prerequisite is that the injury report must show such an injury, so the Scheme did not apply.

Reasoning of the Court

Statutory test. Under Section 3(a) to (d) read with Section 4, each of the listed acts amounts to penetrative sexual assault, and an injury that conclusively proves it is not needed. The Court added that the Supreme Court has held that the acts in Section 3 amount to penetrative sexual assault without further evidence being required for punishment under Section 4.
Supreme Court on injuries. Dalip Kumar said that bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault and that it is a myth that assault must leave injuries, as victims respond to trauma in varied ways. Lok Mal reiterated that absence of injury marks on the private parts is not always fatal and depends on the facts of each case.
Reading of the Scheme. The Court held that the prerequisites do not require the injury report to definitely show a penetrative injury. For a victim to get the benefit, the three documents (the FIR, the injury report and the charge sheet) must be present.
Committee's limits. So long as the FIR and charge sheet indicate an offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the Committee need not and cannot investigate further. It cannot conduct a trial and reach a contrary finding that, because the injury report shows no injury, compensation is not payable.
Beneficial scheme. The Scheme is beneficial legislation meant to ameliorate the trauma and pain of victims and must be read liberally. Compensation is payable because the victim has suffered penetrative sexual assault, not because she sustained injuries, so absence of injury cannot be a ground for refusal as long as the offence falls within Section 3 of the POCSO Act.
Conclusion. The Court held the Steering Committee's finding to be without any basis in law and contrary to the Scheme.

Held

The Court directed that, since the charge sheet had been filed, the full compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 be paid to the victim immediately, within ten days of production of a certified copy of the order. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key legal principles established

Penetrative sexual assault under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act does not depend on proof of physical injury, and absence of injury does not by itself negate the offence.
Under serial No. 6 of the U.P. Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Scheme, the prerequisites are the FIR, the injury report and the charge sheet. The injury report need not show a penetrative injury.
Where the FIR and charge sheet disclose an offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the District Steering Committee cannot hold a trial of its own or reject compensation on the ground that the injury report shows no injury.
Compensation schemes for victims are beneficial legislation and must be read liberally, and compensation is payable for the fact of the assault and not for the injury.