UP Mahila Samman Kosh | Can't Deny Compensation To POCSO Survivor Citing Absence Of Injury In Medical Report: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the absence of injuries in a medical report cannot be a ground to deny compensation to a victim of penetrative sexual assault under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Scheme, 2015.

The Court observed that compensation under the scheme is payable because the victim has suffered penetrative sexual assault, and not because the victim sustained physical injuries during the assault.

A Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai directed the authorities to pay the victim ₹3 lakh in compensation within 10 days of the date a certified copy of the order is produced.

The Bench thus allowed a writ petition filed through the victim's father, challenging the authorities' failure to release compensation under the scheme.

The victim was allegedly sexually assaulted on December 7, 2022, and an FIR was registered on the same date. The police filed the chargesheet on January 13, 2023.

Under Serial No. 6 of the scheme, victims covered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act are entitled to aggregate compensation of ₹3 lakh. The scheme provides for ₹1 lakh to be paid within 15 days of the FIR and the remaining ₹2 lakh within one month of the filing of the chargesheet.

However, the District Steering Committee had kept the victim's compensation claim in abeyance and subsequently rejected it on medical grounds.

The decision was based on the absence of a medical report supporting penetrative sexual assault. The committee said it could reconsider the claim if a supporting forensic science laboratory (FSL) report became available.

Before the HC, the State defended the committee's decision, stating that the medical report did not indicate a penetrative injury and that such an injury was a prerequisite for compensation under the scheme.

The High Court, however, rejected this argument.

Examining Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, the Bench observed that the actions specified under Section 3(a), (b), (c) and (d) constitute penetrative sexual assault. It held that proving such an offence does not require an injury that conclusively establishes penetrative sexual assault.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttaranchal and Lok Mal @ Loku v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it was held that sexual assault does not necessarily result in physical injuries.

The Court noted that in Dalip Kumar, the Supreme Court had cautioned that bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault and that victims may react differently to traumatic experiences.

Similarly, in Lok Mal, the Supreme Court reiterated that the absence of injuries on a victim's private parts is not always fatal to the prosecution's case.

Taking into account these decisions of the Top Court, the High Court held that the scheme's requirements do not mandate that the injury report must conclusively indicate an injury caused by penetrative sexual assault.

"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 observed.

The Court further held that once the FIR and chargesheet indicate an offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the steering committee cannot undertake further investigation or conduct a trial to arrive at a contrary finding merely because the injury report does not indicate an injury.

The Bench also emphasized that the scheme is beneficial legislation intended to ameliorate the trauma and pain suffered by victims and must, therefore, be interpreted liberally.

It concluded that the steering committee's decision was "without any basis in law and contrary to the Scheme".

Since the chargesheet had already been filed, the Court directed that ₹3 lakh be paid to the victim immediately, within 10 days of the production of a certified copy of the order.

The Court disposed of the writ petition accordingly.