POCSO | Absence of injury not ground to withhold Victim Compensation, rules HC

The Allahabad High Court stepped in to address the denial of statutory relief to a child sexual assault survivor, questioning the State’s insistence on physical injury as a precondition for compensation under the POCSO framework. The Court examined whether administrative authorities could withhold benefits under a welfare scheme despite an FIR and charge sheet clearly alleging penetrative sexual assault, flagging a serious misunderstanding of both law and legislative intent.

The controversy began when the victim’s guardian approached the High Court after authorities failed to release compensation under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, even months after the FIR and filing of the charge sheet. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the assault squarely fell under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, entitling the victim to Rs.3 lakh - Rs.1 lakh after the FIR and the remaining Rs.2 lakh post charge sheet.

The State resisted the claim, relying on a District Steering Committee decision that kept the compensation in abeyance on the ground that the medical report did not conclusively record “penetrative injury,” effectively re-evaluating the offence at an administrative level.

The Court firmly rejected this approach, holding that the authorities had fundamentally misconstrued the law. Analysing Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, the Bench underscored that penetrative sexual assault does not hinge on visible physical injury. Citing recent Supreme Court precedents, the Court reminded that “bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault” and warned against perpetuating harmful myths around survivor behaviour and trauma.

It stressed that the Steering Committee had no authority to conduct a “mini-trial” by second-guessing the charge sheet, observing that “as long as the FIR and the charge indicate the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, no further investigation is required.” Holding the Scheme to be a beneficial legislation warranting liberal interpretation, the Court directed the State to release the entire Rs.3 lakh compensation to the victim within ten days, and disposed of the petition.

Case Title:  X Vs. State of U.P. & ors. 

Case No.:  Writ - C No. - 12085 of 2025

Coram: Hon'ble Justice Shekhar B. Saraf,  Hon'ble Justice Manjive Shukla

Advocate for the Petitioner:  Adv. Anjum Ara

Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. C.S.C

Read Judgment @ Latestlaws.com