Absence Of Injury Report Doesn’t Diminish Need For Rehabilitative Support: Allahabad High Court Directs Release Of ₹3 Lakh To POCSO Victim
The Allahabad High Court was considering a petition raising the issue of the validity of a condition imposed by a welfare scheme meant for child victims of sexual violence.
While directing the State to release Rs 3 lakh in favour of a POCSO victim as financial assistance under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, the Allahabad High Court has held that the absence of an injury report neither disproves the allegation nor diminishes the need for immediate monetary, medical and rehabilitative support.
The High Court was considering a petition raising the issue of the validity of a condition imposed by a welfare scheme meant for child victims of sexual violence.
The Bench comprising Justice Garima Prashad and Justice Saral Srivastava held, “The production of an available medical record may legitimately assist the Steering Committee. The constitutional defect lies in making an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault an indispensable condition of eligibility. Such a report may be unavailable for reasons beyond the victim’s control. Its absence neither disproves the allegation nor diminishes the need for immediate monetary, medical and rehabilitative support.”
“The requirement of an “injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault” is severable from the remainder of entry 7. The entry remains complete and workable by requiring the FIR and the charge-sheet”, it added.
Factual Background
Entry 7 of Annexure 1 to the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Rules, 2015 requires three documents for financial assistance: the FIR, the charge-sheet and an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault. The petitioner is a minor victim who approached this Court through her mother as her next friend. She sought release of the financial assistance payable under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, (State Scheme). The incident was stated to have taken place in 2024, when the victim was eight years old. A criminal case was registered under Sections 376-AB, 120-B, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 5(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ( POCSO Act).
The petitioner applied for financial assistance under entry 7 of Annexure 1 to the State Scheme. The entry applies to aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and provides assistance of Rs.3,00,000. The first instalment of Rs 1,00,000 is payable within fifteen days and the remaining amount of Rs 2,00,000 within one month of the filing of the charge-sheet. The petitioner submitted that the FIR and the charge-sheet both invoked Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act. The victim was also produced for medical examination. The petitioner’s claim was rejected because the injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault was not available.
Reasoning
On a perusal of entry 7 of Annexure 1 to the State Scheme, the Bench explained that Entry 7 requires three documents: the FIR, an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault, and the charge-sheet. Each performs a distinct function. The FIR contains the first account of the alleged offence. The chargesheet reflects the conclusion reached by the investigating agency upon the material collected during investigation. The medical or injury report places the available medical findings before the authority.
“None of the three documents constitutes a judicial determination that the alleged offence has been committed. Even in a criminal trial, an accused cannot be acquitted merely because an injury report is absent or because the available report does not record a penetrative injury. The case must be decided upon the totality of the evidence”, it added.
The Bench further explained that Section 3 of the POCSO Act shows that penetrative sexual assault is not confined to an act which must necessarily leave a visible physical injury. It includes penetration to any extent, insertion of an object or body part, manipulation causing penetration and specified oral acts. “Medical evidence may support the allegation, but the statutory offence does not depend upon the presence of a demonstrable bodily injury”, it stated.
The Bench was of the view that the requirement of an “injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault” is severable from the remainder of entry 7. The entry remains complete by requiring the FIR and the charge-sheet. The Bench held that the charge-sheet invoked Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act and the petitioner, therefore, satisfied the surviving mandatory requirements of entry 7.
Decision
Thus, quashing the judgment of the District Steering Committee, the Bench allowed the writ petition and directed the State-respondents to release financial assistance of Rs 3 lakh to the petitioner under entry 7.
Cause Title: Victim X v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:220399-DB)