A clean medical report cannot be used to turn away a child survivor: POCSO survivor’s compensation cannot be denied under the Uttar Pradesh scheme because the report records no injury, the Allahabad High Court has held, directing that Rs 3 lakh be paid to the minor within 10 days.
Lucknow: A District Steering Committee’s refusal to release compensation under the Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Scheme, 2015 to a minor survivor of alleged penetrative sexual assault has been set aside by the Allahabad High Court, which ordered Rs 3 lakh to be paid within 10 days of production of a certified copy of the order. The scheme does not require an injury report to show penetrative assault, the Court held [X Rape Victim v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Women Welfare Department, Lucknow and 3 Others].
A Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai allowed the writ petition, filed through the survivor’s father, by a judgment dated October 5, 2026. The survivor’s identity is withheld in line with the anonymity mandated for POCSO cases.
What the scheme promises
A survivor of an offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act is entitled under the scheme to Rs 3 lakh in all: Rs 1 lakh within 15 days of the FIR and Rs 2 lakh within one month of the chargesheet. Three documents back the claim: the FIR, the injury report and the chargesheet. The High Court has met the point before. In January 2026 a Division Bench headed by Justice Saraf directed payment of Rs 3 lakh in a similar case, where a steering committee had held back compensation because the medical reports showed no penetrative injury, holding that penetration to any extent is the offence and that injury is not essential.
The refusal under challenge
The petition says the minor was allegedly sexually assaulted in December 2022 and that an FIR was registered the same day, with a chargesheet in January 2023 under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which deals with penetrative sexual assault. The District Steering Committee first kept the compensation claim in abeyance and then rejected it, saying the medical report did not support penetrative assault, though it said it could reconsider if a supporting forensic report became available. The allegations against the accused are untested, the High Court expressed no view on their guilt, and the presumption of innocence applies.
The State defended the refusal before the Court by arguing that proof of a penetrative injury was a pre-condition to compensation under the scheme.
Penetration, not injury, is the test
The Bench held that the acts described in Section 3(a) to (d) of the POCSO Act amount to penetrative sexual assault, and that proving the offence does not require an injury which conclusively establishes it. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttaranchal and Lok Mal @ Loku v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which recognise that sexual assault does not necessarily leave physical injuries. On the scheme itself, the Court said:
“the Scheme is a beneficial legislation that aims to ameliorate the trauma and the pain that is suffered by the victims”
Compensation is payable to a victim of penetrative sexual assault because the assault, as the law defines it, has occurred, the Court added, and not because the victim has sustained injuries. With the FIR and a chargesheet under Section 4 on record, the steering committee cannot try the case itself or investigate further to reach a contrary view merely because the injury report notes no injury. The refusal was found to be without basis in law and contrary to the scheme.
Payment within 10 days
The petition was allowed and disposed of, with the Court directing that Rs 3 lakh be paid to the survivor immediately and within 10 days from production of a certified copy of the order.
Why the judgment matters
Compensation schemes for POCSO survivors are meant to reach children fast, within days of the FIR and the chargesheet and long before any trial ends. The ruling stops local committees from using a medical report as a gate, a practice that can leave a survivor waiting years for relief the scheme promises within weeks. It also repeats that the absence of injury does not prove that no assault took place.
Case Title: X Rape Victim v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Women Welfare Department, Lucknow and 3 Others [Writ-C No. 4927 of 2025]
Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai, Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench
Date of Judgment: October 5, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Sanjeev Kumar Pandey for the petitioner; Additional Chief Standing Counsel Pankaj Khare 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.