The absence of a medical injury report cannot be used to deny financial assistance to survivors of sexual assault, the Allahabad High Court has ruled, striking down a requirement that had made such a document compulsory under a Uttar Pradesh welfare scheme.
A bench of Justices Saral Srivastava and Garima Prasad held that victims cannot be excluded from rehabilitation support simply because a medical examination was not conducted or failed to record physical injuries. The court declared the mandatory injury-report condition under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, unconstitutional.
The ruling came in a case involving a minor girl who was allegedly sexually assaulted when she was eight years old in 2024. Her mother approached the court after the State rejected the child’s compensation application for want of the required medical report.
The court has directed the State to release ₹3 lakh in financial assistance to the girl within ten days.
Medical evidence cannot become a barrier to relief
The welfare scheme provides financial support to women and children affected by serious and violent crimes, including sexual offences. Under the disputed condition, applicants alleging penetrative sexual assault were required to submit copies of the FIR, charge-sheet and an injury report indicating such assault.
The bench found that making the medical report an absolute prerequisite placed an unreasonable obstacle in the path of victims seeking immediate assistance.
An injury report can be considered when available, the court observed, but its absence cannot automatically disqualify a survivor from receiving financial support.
The judges pointed out that an FIR, charge-sheet or medical report does not, by itself, finally establish whether an offence occurred. Criminal cases are decided on the basis of the evidence as a whole.
The court also noted that a person accused of sexual assault cannot be acquitted solely because an injury report is missing or does not record a penetrative injury. It would therefore be inconsistent to make the same document indispensable for obtaining preliminary relief under a welfare scheme.
POCSO offences do not always leave visible injuries
The bench emphasised that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act recognises several forms of penetrative sexual assault, including specified oral acts and penetration involving a body part or object. Such acts do not necessarily leave visible physical injuries.
Medical evidence may help support an allegation, but the existence of a demonstrable injury is not a prerequisite for the offence to fall within the law’s definition, the court explained.
In the case before it, the minor had reportedly not consented to the relevant medical examination when the case was registered. An accused was subsequently arrested, and the criminal trial remains pending.
The State argued that an earlier ruling had removed the requirement for a medical report to positively indicate an injury but had not eliminated the need to produce the report itself.
The bench rejected that distinction, holding that the mere availability of an injury report cannot determine the seriousness of an allegation, the credibility of a victim or her need for financial assistance.
Victims’ consent and bodily autonomy must be respected
The court also examined the legal protection available to victims who decline medical examinations.
Referring to Section 184(7) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the bench noted that the law permits a victim to withhold consent for the relevant examination.
Making compensation dependent on the production of an injury report would effectively force victims into an unfair choice: undergo an examination they do not consent to or risk losing assistance intended to support their recovery.
The judges said a welfare scheme cannot indirectly impose a requirement that undermines bodily autonomy protected by law.
They further held that the disputed condition violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. It created an unreasonable distinction between victims who had medical reports and those who did not, including children who declined examinations or whose alleged experiences did not produce visible injuries.
FIR and charge-sheet sufficient for verification
The court clarified that the State can establish reasonable procedures to verify compensation claims and safeguard public funds. However, administrative requirements cannot be designed or applied in a manner that excludes otherwise eligible victims from assistance.
It held that the FIR and charge-sheet would be sufficient for verifying claims in the circumstances addressed by the ruling, while an available medical report could still be considered as supporting material.
Setting aside the compulsory injury-report condition, the bench ordered the State to pay ₹3 lakh to the minor petitioner within ten days.
The judgment reinforces the principle that access to rehabilitation assistance must not depend solely on medical findings, particularly when the law recognises a victim’s right to refuse an examination.