Absence of Injuries No Ground to Deny POCSO Compensation: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, recently directed the Uttar Pradesh government to pay compensation of Rs. 3 lakh to a minor survivor of sexual assault, holding that the absence of physical injuries cannot be a ground to deny monetary relief under the POCSO-linked victim compensation scheme.

The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla was hearing a writ petition filed by the mother of the minor survivor, acting as her next best friend, challenging the inaction of State authorities in disbursing compensation under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015.

According to the petitioner, the minor was sexually assaulted on March 7, 2025, following which FIR No. 048 of 2025 was registered at Katra Bazar police station in Gonda district. The police subsequently filed a charge sheet on June 25, 2025, invoking Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, which deals with penetrative sexual assault.

Under the compensation scheme, victims of penetrative sexual assault under Section 4 POCSO are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 3 lakh. The scheme provides that Rs. 1 lakh must be paid within 15 days of registration of the FIR, while the remaining Rs. 2 lakh must be disbursed within one month of filing of the charge sheet. However, despite the filing of the charge sheet, not a single instalment was released to the victim.

The State relied on a decision of the District Steering Committee, Gonda, which had kept the compensation claim in abeyance. The committee cited the medico-legal and pathology reports, noting that no evidence of penetrative injury was found during the medical examination. On this basis, the committee decided that compensation would be considered only if there was a future conviction by a court.

Opposing the petition, the State argued that proof of injury indicating penetration was a prerequisite under the scheme and that, in the absence of such findings in the medical report, the victim was not entitled to compensation at this stage.

Rejecting the State’s stand, the division bench examined the definition of penetrative sexual assault under Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. The court noted that the statutory definition makes it clear that penetration “to any extent” constitutes the offence and that physical injury is not an essential requirement to establish penetrative sexual assault.

The bench relied on recent Supreme Court judgments, including Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttarakhand and Lok Mal @ Loku v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which have categorically held that sexual assault does not necessarily result in physical injuries and that the absence of injury marks cannot be used to discredit the survivor’s case.

Court further held that the compensation scheme does not empower the steering committee to conduct an independent assessment akin to a trial. As long as the FIR, injury report, and charge sheet are on record, and the charge sheet invokes Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the committee has no authority to deny compensation by questioning the nature of injuries.

Emphasising that the scheme is a beneficial legislation intended to provide immediate relief to victims, the bench held that it must be interpreted liberally. Compensation, court observed, is payable not because of the presence of injuries but because the victim has suffered penetrative sexual assault as defined under law.

Concluding that the decision of the District Steering Committee was without legal basis and contrary to the scheme, the High Court directed the State authorities to pay the entire compensation of Rs. 3 lakh to the victim within a period of 10 days. With this direction, the writ petition was disposed of.

Case Title: Victim X in Fir No.048 of 2025 P.s. Katra Bazar Distt. Gonda Thru.next Best Friend Her Mother vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Social Welfare Lko. and 2 others

Judgment Date: January 14, 2026

Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Manjive Shukla