Injury Report not mandatory for Financial Assistance to Sexual Assault Victims: Allahabad HC

In a landmark victory for victim autonomy, the Allahabad High Court has struck down a mandatory requirement for penetrative injury reports for financial assistance in sexual assault case. The Bench ruled that the State cannot penalize survivors for exercising their legal right to refuse intrusive medical examinations. 

A Division Bench comprising Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad delivered this significant verdict while hearing a petition filed by a minor victim through her mother. The victim sought financial assistance under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, which had been denied by the District Steering Committee solely because the victim did not consent to a specific internal medical examination, resulting in the absence of an injury report indicating penetrative assault.

Constitutional Invalidity of Mandatory Injury Reports

The Allahabad High Court examined whether Entry 7 of Annexure 1 to the State Scheme, which required an "injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault," violated Constitution of India, 1950. The bench noted that penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 does not always leave visible physical marks. Relying on Dalip Kumar alias Dalli v. State of Uttaranchal (2025 CaseBase(SC) 4356) and Lok Mal alias Loku v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025 CaseBase(SC) 283), the Allahabad High Court emphasized that bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault even during a criminal trial.

Justice Garima Prashad, writing for the bench, observed that the condition created an arbitrary classification among victims. The Bench observed that "A procedural condition in a social-welfare scheme cannot be permitted to become more important than the substantive benefit which it was meant to facilitate. The constitutional defect lies in making an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault an indispensable condition of eligibility. Such a report may be unavailable for reasons beyond the victim’s control. Its absence neither disproves the allegation nor diminishes the need for immediate monetary, medical and rehabilitative support."

Protection of Consent and Dignity

The Allahabad High Court highlighted that Section 164-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 184 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) expressly protects the right of a victim to refuse consent for medical examination. Referencing Lillu alias Rajesh and another v. State of Haryana ( "(2013) 14 SCC 643": 2013 CaseBase(SC) 265), the bench reiterated that survivors are entitled to medical procedures that respect their dignity and physical integrity. The bench further noted the precedent in Victim X in FIR No.048 of 2025 v. State of U.P. and others, where a coordinate bench held that the Steering Committee cannot conduct parallel inquiries or reject claims simply because a report fails to record a visible injury.

Therefore, the Allahabad High Court directed the State to release financial assistance of Rs 3 lakhs to the petitioner. 

Background

The case originated from an incident in January 2024 involving an eight-year-old victim. An FIR was lodged under Sections 376-AB, 120-B, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 5(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. While the victim underwent a medical examination, consent for the internal penetrative injury assessment was withheld. A charge-sheet was subsequently filed, but the State rejected the claim for Rs. 3,00,000 assistance due to the missing injury report.

The State argued that the scheme was an independent welfare measure and its conditions must be strictly followed. However, the Court, invoking its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, as elucidated in Dwarka Nath v. Income Tax Officer and Nur Islam and others v. State of Assam and others ( "2025 INSC 1506": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 8794), held that it could mould relief to "reach injustice" even in the absence of a specific prayer challenging the scheme's validity. Citing Kulsum Nisha v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others ( "2026 INSC 617": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 524) and Animal Welfare Board of India v. Union of India ( "2023 INSC 524": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 166), the Allahabad High Court affirmed that welfare provisions must be interpreted to preserve their legislative object.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT - C No. - 16193 of 2026
Case Title: Victim X v. State of U.P. and 2 others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Satish Kumar
For the Respondent(s): Manish Goyal (Additional Advocate General), Sandeep Kumar Singh (Additional Chief Standing Counsel)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 1345