No injury report, no money? Not any more: the Allahabad High Court has struck down the injury report condition for POCSO survivors’ compensation, holding that a welfare scheme cannot refuse relief to a child who declined an internal medical examination simply because the paper does not exist.
Prayagraj: A minor survivor’s claim for Rs 3 lakh under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Rules, 2015 had been rejected for want of an “injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault”. The Allahabad High Court has quashed that rejection, declared the requirement unconstitutional for violating Article 14, and directed the State to release the amount within ten days [Victim X v. State of U.P. and 2 Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad allowed the writ petition, brought by the minor through her mother, in a judgment of October 23, 2026. Her identity is withheld, in keeping with the anonymity that applies in POCSO cases.
Rejection quashed, Rs 3 lakh in ten days
Three things follow from the judgment. The District Steering Committee’s rejection stands quashed. The injury-report condition is declared unconstitutional. And the State must pay Rs 3 lakh to the petitioner within ten days of the judgment.
Why the condition could not stand
The Bench described the condition as manifestly arbitrary. Victims of the same offence were split into two classes, those with an injury report and those without, and nothing about that split bore a rational link to the purpose of a welfare scheme. The Court said:
A mandatory injury-report condition places the victim in an impermissible dilemma.
Since a victim may lawfully refuse consent to an internal medical examination, the Bench held, a welfare scheme cannot penalise her for making that protected choice. If an injury report exists, the competent authority can still consider it, but its absence cannot be an absolute bar to monetary relief. The condition is severable, the Court held, so Entry 7 remains workable on the FIR and the charge-sheet alone.
Consent, and an assault that may leave no mark
Penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the POCSO Act need not leave a visible injury. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dalip Kumar alias Dalli v. State of Uttarakhand, the Bench held that an injury report can be relevant but is not the only way such an assault is recognised. It also pointed out that, under Section 164-A(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 184(7) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, a medical examination cannot go ahead without the victim’s consent.
The claim and its refusal
The petitioner, a minor girl, was allegedly raped in 2024. She was medically examined the day after the alleged incident, but she did not consent to the examination relating to penetrative sexual assault, and so no injury report could be prepared. An accused was arrested, the police filed a charge-sheet invoking Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act, and the trial is continuing. The allegations against the accused are untested, the High Court has expressed no view on his guilt, and the presumption of innocence applies.
Her claim under Entry 7 of Annexure-I to the 2015 Rules, which provides Rs 3 lakh for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, was turned down by the District Steering Committee because she could not produce the injury report. She cited an earlier ruling of the Court that compensation cannot be denied merely because the medical record shows no injury. The State’s answer was that the earlier ruling did away only with the need for a visible physical injury, not with the need to produce an injury report.
Striking down without being asked
The petition had not expressly prayed for the condition to be struck down. The Court granted that relief regardless, reasoning that the rejection rested wholly on the condition, that the State had defended it, and that no further evidence was needed.
More than one claim
Earlier decisions had read the scheme so that a clean medical report could not defeat a claim. This judgment removes the condition itself, and that matters most for children who were not examined internally or whose families declined consent. Compensation under the scheme can now be verified on the FIR and the charge-sheet, so survivors are not made to choose between a medical examination and financial support.
Case Title: Victim X v. State of U.P. and 2 Others [Writ-C No. 16193 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad, Allahabad High Court
Date of Judgment: October 23, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Pankaj Kumar Shukla and Satish Kumar for the petitioner; Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal with Additional Chief Standing Counsel Sandeep Kumar for the State
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
If you or a child you know needs help, CHILDLINE 1098 is available free of charge, round the clock.