Compensation For Child Sexual Assault Victims Not Dependent On Presence Of Physical Injury: Allahabad High Court
The victim had been denied compensation under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, on the ground that there was no evidence of a “penetrating injury” in the medical report.
The Allahabad High Court has clarified that a child victim of penetrative sexual assault cannot be denied compensation solely because medical records do not show injury to the private parts.
The case was under Section 4 (penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The victim had been denied compensation under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, on the ground that there was no evidence of a “penetrating injury” in the medical report.
The Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla rejected this reasoning, holding that the presence or absence of injury is irrelevant to the grant of compensation. The Bench added, “Under the Scheme, compensation is to be paid to the victim of penetrative sexual assault not because the victim has sustained injuries during the penetrative sexual assault, but due to the very fact of having suffered the penetrative sexual assault. Therefore, till such time, the offence is covered within the definition of penetrative sexual assault as per Section 3 of the POSCO Act, it is immaterial whether there is any injury or not and only because there is no injury that cannot be a ground to refuse compensation to such victims.”
Advocate Anjum Ara appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Shailesh Chandra Tiwari appeared for the Respondents.
The scheme provides that a victim of penetrative sexual assault is entitled to an aggregate compensation of ₹1 lakh to ₹3 lakh, with 15 days for initial disbursement after the filing of the FIR, and the remaining amount to be paid within a month of filing the charge sheet.
In this case, the state had defended the decision of a district steering committee to keep the victim’s claim in abeyance, arguing that injury was a prerequisite for receiving compensation. The High Court rejected this argument, observing that the definition of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the POCSO Act is broad and covers several acts, including Section 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), and 3(d), all of which constitute penetrative sexual assault.
The Court emphasized that proof of physical injury is not necessary to establish that a penetrative sexual assault has occurred. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, including Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttaranchal (Criminal Appeal No. 1005 of 2013), the Court noted that penetrative sexual assault does not always result in physical injury.
The Court clarified that the prerequisites for compensation under the scheme do not require that the injury report conclusively indicate a sexual assault. For a victim to receive compensation, the following documents must be on record, “Our reading of the said provision of the Scheme is that for granting benefit to the victim, the three documents, that is, the FIR, the injury report and the charge sheet should be present.”
The High Court said that the steering committee is not a fact-finding or trial body and cannot deny compensation simply because the injury report lacks evidence of penetrating injury. Once the FIR and charge sheet establish the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, no additional investigation is required.
The Court also highlighted the beneficial nature of the scheme, noting that it is designed to alleviate the trauma and suffering of victims and should be interpreted liberally to serve its purpose.
The Court directed the immediate payment of ₹3 lakh in compensation to the victim.
Cause Title: Victim X v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Social Welfare Lko. & ors., [2026:AHC-LKO:2981-DB]
