Injury Report Cannot Bar Compensation for Child Sexual Assault Victims, Rules Allahabad High Court

Injury Report Cannot Bar Compensation for Child Sexual Assault Victims, Rules Allahabad High Court in Victim X v. State of U.P.

Case: Victim X v. State of U.P. and 2 Others
Citation: 2026:AHC:220399-DB
Date of Judgment: 23 October 2026
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Coram: Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad
Proceedings: Writ-C No. 16193 of 2026

Court Observation

“Where a medical or injury report is available, it may be placed before and considered by the authority; its absence, however, cannot operate as an absolute bar to monetary relief. The impugned documentary condition is, accordingly, declared unconstitutional and is struck down.”

Summary

The Allahabad High Court has struck down a condition in Uttar Pradesh’s financial assistance scheme for women and child victims of violent crime that made an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault a mandatory requirement for compensation. A Division Bench held that the condition was unconstitutional because it denied help to victims for reasons entirely beyond their control, including a victim’s lawful choice not to undergo a particular medical examination.

The case concerned a minor girl who had sought Rs 3 lakh under Entry 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, which provides assistance for victims of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Her claim was rejected solely because she could not produce an injury report indicating penetrative assault, as she had not consented to that particular examination. The court held that the FIR and the charge-sheet, which invoked Sections 5(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, were sufficient for her claim.

The court emphasised that penetrative sexual assault need not leave a visible injury, and that the absence of an injury report neither disproves the allegation nor reduces the victim’s need for immediate monetary, medical and rehabilitative support. The allegations against the accused remain untested, and the court expressed no view on his guilt.

Key Holdings

  • The condition in Entry 7 requiring an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault as an indispensable condition for financial assistance is unconstitutional and is struck down, as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
  • The condition is manifestly arbitrary because it divides victims of the same offence into two classes, those with an injury report and those without, with no rational connection to the object of the scheme.
  • A victim’s lawful choice to refuse a particular medical examination cannot be held against her when she seeks rehabilitative support.
  • The condition is severable, and Entry 7 remains workable on the basis of the FIR and the charge-sheet alone.
  • An available medical or injury report may still be placed before and considered by the competent authority, but its absence cannot operate as an absolute bar to monetary relief.
  • Penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the POCSO Act need not leave a visible injury, and the absence of an injury report does not diminish the need for immediate support.

Directions Issued

  • The decision of the District Steering Committee rejecting the petitioner’s claim is quashed.
  • The State is directed to release financial assistance of Rs 3 lakh to the petitioner under Entry 7 within 10 days of the judgment.

Background

The petitioner, a minor girl acting through her mother as next friend, alleged that she was sexually assaulted in 2024, when she was eight years old. A case was registered and a charge-sheet was filed invoking Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act, and the trial is continuing. She was medically examined the day after the alleged incident but did not consent to the examination relating to penetrative sexual assault, so no such injury report could be prepared. Her claim for Rs 3 lakh under Entry 7 was rejected solely for want of that report. The court struck down the condition even though the petition had not expressly asked for it, since the rejection rested wholly on that condition.

Related Articles

Disclaimer: This is a summary prepared for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should refer to the official judgment for the authoritative text.