The Allahabad High Court ruled that physical injury marks are not required to establish penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the POCSO Act.
The bench emphasized that victim compensation schemes are beneficial welfare measures meant to ease trauma and must be interpreted liberally.
The court directed the Uttar Pradesh government to release ₹3 lakh in compensation to the minor survivor within 10 days.
POCSO Survivor Cannot Be Denied Compensation Solely Due To Absence Of Injury Marks: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court rules that POCSO survivors cannot be denied victim compensation merely because no physical injury marks were recorded during medical examination
Summary
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 Thursday, a division bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai directed authorities to pay Rs 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 Rs 3 lakh. Of this, Rs 1 lakh is payable within 15 days of the FIR, while the remaining Rs 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 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.
Advertisement
Published At: