Court rules District Steering Committee cannot deny payment under UP Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh merely because medical report shows no penetrative injury
The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench has directed the Uttar Pradesh authorities to pay Rs. 3 lakh compensation to a minor rape victim under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, holding that compensation in a Section 4 POCSO case cannot be denied solely because the medical report does not show penetrative injury.
A Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai passed the order in X Rape Victim of Crime No. 576/2022, P.S. Sarojnee Nagar, Lucknow through her father v. State of U.P. and Others on October 5, 2026.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by the victim’s father, alleging that despite the FIR being lodged on December 7, 2022, and a charge sheet being filed on January 13, 2023, the authorities had failed to release any compensation under the state victim compensation scheme. Under Serial No. 6 of the scheme, victims of offences under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are entitled to Rs. 3 lakh compensation — Rs.1 lakh within 15 days of the FIR and the remaining Rs. 2 lakh within one month of filing of the charge sheet.
The State defended the delay by relying on a District Steering Committee decision dated March 1, 2025, which had kept the claim in abeyance. The committee reasoned that since the injury report did not reveal evidence of “penetrative injury,” the victim was not entitled to compensation under the scheme.
Rejecting this stand, the High Court held that such an interpretation was legally unsustainable. The Bench examined Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act and observed that penetrative sexual assault, as defined in law, does not necessarily require physical injury or medical evidence conclusively showing penetration. The Court emphasized that the absence of bodily injury is not decisive either for the offence itself or for grant of compensation under the scheme.
The judges also referred to recent Supreme Court rulings in Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttaranchal and Lok Mal @ Loku v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which reiterate that sexual assault may not always leave visible injuries and that lack of injury marks cannot by itself discredit the victim’s case.
Interpreting the compensation scheme, the Court said the requirement of “FIR, injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault and charge sheet” must be read reasonably and beneficially. According to the Bench, the scheme only requires the relevant documents to be available; it does not mandate that the injury report must conclusively establish penetrative injury before compensation can be granted.
The Court further held that once the FIR and charge sheet disclose an offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the District Steering Committee cannot undertake a “mini trial” and return findings contrary to the criminal case record. It said the committee had acted beyond its role by effectively reassessing the merits of the allegation and denying compensation on that basis.
Calling the scheme a piece of beneficial legislation intended to alleviate the trauma and pain suffered by victims, the Bench said it must be construed liberally in favour of survivors. The Court underlined that compensation is payable because the victim has suffered penetrative sexual assault, not because she has proved physical injuries resulting from it.
Holding the Steering Committee’s decision to be contrary to law and the scheme, the High Court directed the State to pay the full compensation amount of Rs. 3 lakh to the victim within 10 days from the date a certified copy of the order is produced.
The ruling is likely to have wider implications for victim compensation claims in POCSO cases across Uttar Pradesh, especially where authorities have relied on absence of injuries in medical reports to delay or deny statutory relief.
Bottom Line:
Victim compensation under Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015 - In case of offence under Section 4 of POCSO Act, compensation cannot be denied merely because injury report does not show penetrative injury - Steering Committee cannot conduct a mini trial contrary to FIR and charge-sheet - Scheme being beneficial legislation must be construed liberally.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
