Allahabad High Court Declares Mandatory Injury Report Requirement Under UP Financial Assistance Scheme For POCSO Survivors 'Unconstitutional'

The Allahabad High Court has declared 'unconstitutional' the mandatory requirement under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Scheme, 2015, to submit an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault to claim financial assistance for child sexual assault survivors.

A Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad held that the condition was manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it makes the operation of the Scheme dependent upon a medical document which may not lawfully or practically be available

The Court observed that the absence of an injury report neither disproves the allegation of sexual assault nor diminishes the victim's need for immediate monetary, medical and rehabilitative support.

"The distinction created by the impugned condition, therefore, bears no rational nexus with the object of the State Scheme", the Bench held.

Case in brief

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a minor girl, through her mother, challenging the rejection of her claim for financial assistance under the scheme.

The State had refused the benefit because the particular medical examination relating to penetrative sexual assault was not conducted for want of consent, and consequently, the prescribed injury report was unavailable.

Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the District Steering Committee's decision rejecting the claim and directed the State to release ₹3 lakh to the victim within ten days.

For context, Entry 7 of Annexure 1 to the UP Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, provides financial assistance of ₹3 lakh for aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The scheme prescribed 3 documents as prerequisites for payment: the FIR, the charge-sheet and an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault. It provides for an initial installment of ₹1 lakh within 15 days and the remaining ₹2 lakh within one month of the filing of the charge-sheet.

In the present case, the alleged incident took place on January 28, 2024, when the victim was 8 years old. It was the allegation that the accused inserted a finger into the victim's private part and thereafter placed his private part in her mouth. An FIR was registered under relevant sections of IPC and POCSO Act. 

The victim was medically examined the following day. However, consent was not given for the particular examination relating to penetrative sexual assault. Consequently, although a record of the medical examination is available, no injury report as contemplated under entry 7 of the scheme could be prepared.

After the police filed a charge-sheet invoking the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act, the victim's claim for financial assistance was rejected by the District Steering Committee.

The State argued that the scheme was an independent welfare measure and that the documentary requirements under it had to be followed strictly.

It also contended that an earlier Division Bench judgment dispenses only with the requirement of a visible physical injury; it does not dispense with producing an injury report.

High Court's observations

At the outset, the High Court rejected the contention that the report could be made an indispensable condition for preliminary monetary relief.

The Bench noted that the scheme was intended to provide immediate monetary and medical relief to victims of heinous offences and to support their maintenance, education, health and rehabilitation.

It held that every condition under the scheme must further this purpose and cannot be applied in a manner that frustrates it.

"A procedural safeguard may assist the authority in identifying a claim; it cannot be converted into a barrier which excludes an otherwise eligible victim for reasons unrelated to the object of the Scheme," the Court observed.

The Court explained that penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the POCSO Act is not confined to an act that necessarily leaves a visible physical injury. It noted that the Medical evidence may support an allegation, but the statutory offence does not depend upon the presence of a demonstrable bodily injury.

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Dalip Kumar alias Dalli v. State of Uttarakhand, the High Court noted the observation that "Bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault".

It further observed that an injury report may be relevant without being conclusive and that its evidentiary value cannot be enlarged to the point where it becomes the "exclusive means of recognising penetrative sexual assault".

The Court also referred to Section 164-A(7) CrPC and Section 184(7) BNSS, which provide that the medical examination cannot be lawful without the woman's consent, or the consent of a person competent to give it on her behalf.

The Bench held that if the law protects the refusal of consent and the criminal case does not fail merely because an internal examination was not conducted, the same refusal cannot be treated as sufficient reason to exclude a victim from a welfare scheme.

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

The Court added that making an injury report mandatory places a victim in an impermissible dilemma: either submit to the particular examination or lose the financial assistance intended for her rehabilitation.

Against this backdrop, the Court examined the requirement under Article 14 of the Constitution, and noted that the State's Scheme divided victims alleging the same offence into two classes: those for whom an injury report was available and those for whom it was not.

The bench said that the latter category could include victims who did not consent to the relevant examination, those examined after physical signs had disappeared, or those alleging acts that might not ordinarily leave a visible injury.

The Bench observed that victims in both categories may have suffered the same offence, undergone the same trauma and require the same immediate care and rehabilitation.

"The availability of an injury report does not determine the seriousness of the allegation, the credibility of the victim or her need for monetary relief," it held.

The Court concluded that the requirement had no rational nexus with the scheme's object and penalized the exercise of a choice protected by law. It therefore declared the requirement of an "injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault" unconstitutional and struck it down.

The Bench clarified that an available medical or injury report may still be placed before and considered by the competent authority.

The Court also quashed the District Steering Committee's decision and allowed the writ petition and directed the State respondents to release ₹3 lakh to the minor victim within ten days of the judgment. Thus, the petition was allowed.