POCSO survivor cannot be denied compensation solely due to absence of injury marks: Allahabad HC

POCSO survivor cannot be denied compensation solely due to absence of injury marks: Allahabad HC left Allahabad High Court. File The Hindu The Hindu th-online Administrator A general view of High court of Allahabad building from outside in Prayagraj. Allahabad High court is one of the oldest High court of India. Now it is situated in Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh (A northern state of India).

The case relates to an FIR registered at Sarojini Nagar police station in Lucknow on December 7, 2022. A chargesheet in this connection was filed on January 13, 2023. Lucknow The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a survivor of sexual assault under the POCSO Act cannot be denied compensation merely because the medical report does not record physical injuries. In the order issued on Thursday (October 22, 2026), a Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai directed authorities to pay ₹3 lakh to a minor under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh scheme within 10 days of the production of a certified copy of the order.

The court held that the district steering committee's decision to withhold compensation was contrary to law and the provisions of the scheme. Under the scheme, survivors of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act are entitled to compensation of ₹3 lakh. Of this, ₹1 lakh is payable within 15 days of the FIR, while the remaining ₹2 lakh must be paid within a month of the chargesheet being filed.

The case relates to an FIR registered at Sarojini Nagar police station in Lucknow on December 7, 2022. A chargesheet in this connection was filed on January 13, 2023. The district committee had withheld compensation citing the absence of medical evidence supporting penetrative sexual assault. The state counsel defended the decision, arguing that the medical report did not record injuries indicating penetration.

Rejecting the argument, the High Court observed that physical injury is not a necessary condition for establishing penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the POCSO Act. The Bench held that the absence of injury marks cannot, by itself, negate an allegation of sexual assault. Once the FIR and chargesheet indicate an offence under Section 4 of the Act, compensation cannot be denied solely because the medical report does not record injuries.

Describing the scheme as a beneficial measure intended to alleviate the trauma and suffering of victims, the court said its provisions must be interpreted liberally.