POCSO compensation cannot be denied over no injury marks: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court ordered Rs 3 lakh compensation for a minor POCSO survivor. The ruling says absent injury marks alone cannot defeat welfare relief.Lucknow,Oct 23, 2026 09:20 ISTThe Allahabad High Court has ruled that a survivor of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot be denied compensation merely because the medical report does not record physical injuries, news agency Press Trust of India reported.A division bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai directed the authorities to pay Rs 3 lakh to a minor under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh scheme.

The payment must be made within 10 days of the submission of a certified copy of the order issued on Thursday.The court held that the district steering committee's decision to withhold compensation was contrary to the law and the provisions of the scheme.Under the scheme, survivors of sexual assault under the POCSO Act are entitled to compensation of Rs 3 lakh. Of this, Rs 1 lakh must be paid within 15 days of the registration of the FIR, while the remaining Rs 2 lakh must be paid within a month of the filing of the chargesheet.

According to PTI, the case relates to an FIR registered at Sarojini Nagar police station in Lucknow on December 7, 2022. A chargesheet was filed on January 13, 2023.The district committee had withheld the compensation, citing the absence of medical evidence supporting the allegation of 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 necessary to establish penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the POCSO Act.

The bench said the absence of injury marks alone could not negate an allegation of sexual assault.The court held that 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. It described the scheme as a welfare measure intended to ease the trauma and suffering of survivors and said its provisions must be interpreted liberally.The ruling directs the payment of the full Rs 3 lakh compensation to the minor and makes clear that the absence of physical injuries in a medical report cannot be the sole reason for denying relief under the scheme.- Ends