Safiya Malik

The High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow, Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla has directed the State authorities to pay ₹3 lakh compensation to a minor victim under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, after finding that the benefit must follow once the FIR discloses an offence under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The petition arose from the district steering committee’s decision to keep the claim in abeyance on the ground that the medico-legal opinion did not record evidence of penetrative injury. The Court found that absence of injuries in the injury report cannot be used to deny compensation when the offence is reflected in the FIR and charge-sheet and ordered payment within 10 days.

The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the next friend of a minor victim, seeking release of compensation under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015. The grievance raised was against the inaction of the State authorities in disbursing compensation despite registration of an FIR alleging penetrative sexual assault and filing of a charge sheet under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Also Read: AP Stamp Act | Agreement To Sell Attracts Stamp Duty Only If Followed By Delivery Of Possession: Supreme Court

According to the petition, the incident of sexual assault occurred on 7 March 2025. An FIR was lodged on the same date and the victim was medically examined on 8 March 2025. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed on 25 June 2025. The petitioner relied on Serial No. 6 of Annexure I to the Scheme, which provides for aggregate compensation of ₹3,00,000 to victims of penetrative sexual assault, with payment structured in two stages linked to filing of the FIR and charge sheet.

The State authorities, through the District Steering Committee, kept the claim in abeyance on the ground that the medical report did not record evidence of penetrating injury. The dispute before the Court thus centered on whether absence of injury in the medical report could disentitle the victim from compensation under the Scheme despite the offence being reflected in the FIR and charge sheet.

The Bench first examined the statutory framework governing penetrative sexual assault. It reproduced Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and observed that “the very actions as provided in Section 3(a), 3(b), 3(c) and 3(d) would amount to penetrative sexual assault.” The Court recorded that “for the penetrative sexual assault to be proven, it is not necessary that there be an injury that conclusively proves the said penetrative sexual assault.”

While addressing the reasoning adopted by the District Steering Committee, the Court stated that “the pre requisites as are required in the Scheme do not in any manner require that the injury report must definitely indicate a penetrative sexual assault injury.” It further observed that “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 Bench recorded that once the FIR and charge sheet disclose an offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, “no further investigation is required to be carried out by the steering committee and the steering committee cannot conduct a trial and come to a contrary finding.” It specifically noted that the committee could not deny compensation “since there is no injury indicated in the injury report.”

The Court also observed that the Scheme is “a beneficial legislation that aims to ameliorate the trauma and the pain that is suffered by the victims, and accordingly, has to be read as a beneficial legislation in a liberal manner.” It further stated: “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.”

On this basis, the Bench concluded that “the finding of the steering committee is without any basis in law and contrary to the Scheme.”

Also Read: Indefinite Blacklisting Requires Reasons, Defined Duration And Consideration Of Defence, Allahabad High Court Quashes BSA Debarment Order Against Service Provider Over Manpower Selection Dispute

The Court directed that “the compensation of Rs.3 lacs be paid to the victim immediately within a period of 10 days from date.” The writ petition was thereafter “disposed of with the above directions”.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Anjum Ara, Advocate

For the Respondents: Learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh

Case Title: Victim X v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: AHC-LKO:2981-DB
Case Number: Writ – C No. 12085 of 2025
Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf, Justice Manjive Shukla