State cannot deny compensation to rape victims for not producing medical report: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on Friday ruled that the State cannot deny financial assistance to rape victims for failing to produce an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault in cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

A bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prasad held that an injury report is not mandatory for receiving the financial assistance under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Rules, 2015.

The Court therefore quashed a condition that made production of the medical examination report mandatory in cases of aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

"Where a medical or injury report is available, it may be placed before and considered by the authority; its absence, however, cannot operate as an absolute bar to monetary relief. The impugned documentary condition is, accordingly, declared unconstitutional and is struck down," the Court ruled

The rules provide for financial assistance to women and children who are victims of heinous and violent crimes, particularly sexual offences. However, one of the conditions require the victims of penetrative sexual assault to produce a copy of the FIR, the charge-sheet and an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault.

The Court said none of the three documents on their own constitute a judicial determination of the commission of the alleged offence, and the case is decided upon the totality of the evidence.

It explained that even in a criminal trial, an accused cannot be acquitted merely because an injury report is absent or the available report does not record a penetrative injury.

"It would, therefore, be anomalous to make the same report an absolute condition for preliminary monetary relief under a social-welfare scheme, particularly when the FIR discloses the offence and the investigation has resulted in a charge-sheet under the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act," the Court said.

The availability of an injury report does not determine the seriousness of the allegation, the credibility of the victim or her need for monetary relief, the Court observed.

While the Court acknowledged that the State can prescribe a fair procedure for identifying eligible claims and protecting public funds, it said that a procedural safeguard cannot be converted into a barrier which excludes an otherwise eligible victim.

"A positive medical indication is not indispensable even for proof of the offence at trial; much less can it become the sole gateway to immediate rehabilitative assistance," the Court stressed.

It held that the FIR and the charge-sheet would be sufficient for the purposes of verifying the claims.

The Court was dealing with the plea moved by a minor victim through her mother. The victim was allegedly raped in 2024 when she was 8 years old. At the time of registration of case, she reportedly did not consent for the medical examination relating to penetrative sexual assault. A person was later arrested and the case is currently undergoing a trial.

When she applied for compensation under the scheme, the State declined her application as she could not produce the medical report. She then moved the Court, arguing that the High Court in January ruled that the compensation cannot be denied on the ground that the medical record does not indicate injury to the private parts.

In response, the State said the earlier court ruling dispensed with the requirement of a visible physical injury but did not dispense with the production of an injury report itself.

In judgment delivered on October 23, the Court noted that the accused in the present case had allegedly inserted a finger into the victim’s private part and then placed his penis in her mouth.

It added that Section 3 of the POCSO Act shows that penetrative sexual assault is not confined to an act which must necessarily leave a visible physical injury.

"It includes penetration to any extent, insertion of an object or body part, manipulation causing penetration and specified oral acts. Medical evidence may support the allegation, but the statutory offence does not depend upon the presence of a demonstrable bodily injury," it said.

Thus, it said that an injury report may be relevant without being conclusive.

Its evidentiary value cannot be enlarged to the point where it becomes the exclusive means of recognising penetrative sexual assault, the Court added.

The Court also took note of the earlier ruling which said that an available injury report need not positively record a physical injury caused by penetration.

On the question of refusing medical examination, the Court said Section 184(7) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) allows victims to decline consent.

"If the governing law protects the refusal of consent and the criminal case does not fail merely because an internal examination was not conducted, the same refusal cannot be treated as sufficient reason to exclude the victim from a welfare scheme," the bench said.

The Court added that a mandatory injury-report condition places the victim in an impermissible dilemma - either submit to the particular examination or lose the financial assistance intended for her rehabilitation.

"The first choice may compromise the bodily autonomy which the law protects; the second may deny support at the stage when the victim is most vulnerable. A welfare scheme cannot indirectly compel what the governing statute prohibits from being done without consent," it said.

The Court also held the condition to be violative of Article 14, stating that it divides victims alleging the same offence into two classes: those for whom an injury report is available and those for whom it is not. 

"The latter class may include a victim who does not consent to the relevant examination, one who is examined after physical signs have disappeared, or one who alleges an act which may not ordinarily leave a visible injury," the bench said

Considering the findings, the Court directed the State to release financial assistance of ₹3 lakh to the petitioner within ten days.

Advocates Pankaj Kumar Shukla and Satish Kumar represented the petitioner.

Additional Advocate General Manish Goyal with Additional Chief Standing Counsel Sandeep Kumar appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]