POCSO Case: Allahabad HC Strikes Down Injury Report Rule For ₹3 Lakh Aid To Child Sexual Assault Victims

A welfare scheme cannot force a choice between bodily autonomy and financial assistance, the Allahabad High Court recently said, holding that child victims of sexual violence cannot be denied rehabilitation benefits merely because an injury report is unavailable after the relevant medical examination was not conducted for want of consent.

Court struck down as unconstitutional a Uttar Pradesh government scheme condition requiring an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault for financial assistance to child victims of sexual violence, holding that the absence of such a report cannot be an absolute bar to rehabilitation.

A division bench of Justices Garima Prashad and Saral Srivastava made the observation while allowing a writ petition filed by a minor girl whose claim for financial assistance under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, was rejected because the requisite injury report was unavailable.

The bench directed the State government to release ₹3 lakh to the victim within 10 days of the judgment. It also quashed the District Steering Committee's decision rejecting her claim.

Case Background

The case arose from an alleged incident on January 28, 2024, when the victim was eight years old. An FIR was registered at Shahganj police station in Jaunpur district on March 7, 2024, under Sections 376-AB, 120-B, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 5(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

The victim underwent a medical examination on March 8, 2024. However, the doctor recorded that consent had not been given for the particular examination relating to penetrative sexual assault. Consequently, although a record of the medical examination was available, the injury report required under the scheme could not be prepared.

The police subsequently filed a charge-sheet invoking Sections 5(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act, among other provisions. The accused was arrested, and the criminal trial was pending when the high court heard the petition.

Under Entry 7 of Annexure 1 to the State scheme, victims of aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act are entitled to ₹3 lakh in financial assistance. The entry required the FIR, an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault and the charge-sheet. The District Steering Committee rejected the victim's application because the relevant injury report was unavailable.

The State government argued that the scheme was an independent welfare measure and that its eligibility conditions had to be followed strictly. It also contended that an earlier division bench ruling in Victim X in FIR No.048 of 2025 v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C No.12085 of 2025, 2026:AHC-LKO:2981-DB had dispensed only with the requirement of a visible physical injury, not the requirement to produce an injury report.

The bench, however, held that making the report an indispensable condition was inconsistent with the scheme's rehabilitative purpose.

“The language of Rule 4(a) leaves no doubt that the Scheme is a social-welfare measure... Every condition in Annexure 1 must, therefore, further this purpose and cannot be applied in a manner which frustrates it,” court observed.

Court noted that the FIR, charge-sheet and medical report serve different purposes. While the FIR records the initial allegation and the charge-sheet reflects the investigating agency's conclusion based on the material collected, the medical report places the available medical findings before the authority.

“None of the three documents constitutes a judicial determination that the alleged offence has been committed,” the bench said.

It further observed that an accused cannot be acquitted in a criminal trial merely because an injury report is absent or does not record a penetrative injury. The case must be decided on the totality of the evidence.

The bench also noted that penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the POCSO Act is not confined to acts that necessarily leave visible physical injuries. Medical evidence may support an allegation, but the statutory offence does not depend on the presence of a demonstrable bodily injury.

On the evidentiary significance of physical injuries in sexual-assault cases, court said an injury report may be relevant without being conclusive.

“A positive medical indication is not indispensable even for proof of the offence at trial; much less can it become the sole gateway to immediate rehabilitative assistance,” it held.

The bench also relied on statutory provisions protecting consent in medical examinations. Referring to Section 164A(7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the corresponding provision under Section 184(7) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the court said consent is an indispensable safeguard governing the medical examination of a victim.

It cited the Supreme Court's decision in Lillu alias Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2013), which recognised survivors' entitlement to medical procedures conducted in a manner that respects their right to consent.

Court said the mandatory injury-report condition placed victims in an “impermissible dilemma”.

“Either submit to the particular examination or lose the financial assistance intended for her rehabilitation,” the bench observed, adding that the first choice could compromise bodily autonomy while the second could deny support when the victim was most vulnerable.

“A welfare scheme cannot indirectly compel what the governing statute prohibits from being done without consent,” it said.

Examining the condition under Article 14 of the Constitution, the bench held that it created an irrational distinction between victims for whom an injury report was available and those for whom it was not. The latter category could include victims who did not consent to the relevant examination, were examined after physical signs had disappeared, or alleged acts that might not ordinarily leave visible injuries.

Court found that the availability of an injury report had no rational connection with a victim's need for immediate care and rehabilitation.

“The condition is consequently manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,” the bench held.

It declared the injury-report requirement severable from the remainder of Entry 7. The FIR and charge-sheet would continue to be mandatory, and an available medical report could still be considered by the authorities. However, the absence of such a report could not operate as an absolute bar to financial assistance.

The State had also argued that the petition did not expressly seek a declaration that the documentary condition was unconstitutional. Rejecting this objection, the Bench held that it could mould relief under Article 226 of the Constitution because the rejection rested entirely on the impugned condition and the parties had addressed its legality.

“A mere direction to reconsider the petitioner’s claim without removing the invalid condition would leave the cause of rejection untouched and render the remedy ineffective,” court said.

Holding that the petitioner satisfied the surviving requirements under Entry 7, the bench quashed the rejection decision and directed the State respondents to release ₹3 lakh within 10 days. The amount must be deposited in the protected bank account maintained for the victim or dealt with under another lawful arrangement made by the competent court to safeguard the minor's interests.

The writ petition was allowed, and there was no order as to costs.

Case Title: Victim X v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Order Date: October 23, 2026

Bench: Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad