# Victim X in Fir No. 048 of 2025 P.S. Katra Bazar Distt. Gonda v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 514 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-01-14 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 12085 of 2025 - **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Manjive Shukla - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/victim-x-in-fir-no-048-of-2025-p-s-katra-bazar-distt-gonda-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54067 - **Pages:** 7 ## Text 514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 11. It is also material to mention that respondent no.2 /Chaina Devi has filed two restoration applications, one before Consolidation Officer and another before Deputy Director of Consolidation along with prayer for condonation of delay. The Deputy Director of Consolidation has rightly exercised the jurisdiction in setting aside the order allowing the revisions dated 3.9.2012 as well as order dated 7.11.2012 passed by Consolidation Officer, allowing the application filed under Section 12 of U.P.C.H. Act as Deputy Director of Consolidation can exercise the jurisdiction against any order passed by the consolidation authority subordinate to him in view of the provisions contained under Section 44- A of U.P.C.H. Act. Section 44-A of the U.P. C.H. Act will be relevant for perusal which is as under: "44-A Powers of subordinate authority to be exercised by a superior authority: Where powers or duties are to be exercised or duties to be performed by any authority under this Act or the rules, made thereunder, such powers or duties may also be exercised or performed by any authority superior to it." 12. The Deputy Director of Consolidation/revisional court can decide the entire dispute after impleading the respondent no.2 / Chaina Devi as party in both the revisions in proper manner, considering the earlier orders passed by the consolidation authorities under Section 9-A(2) of U.P.C.H. Act and Section 12 of U.P. C.H. Act. The issue as to whether the disputed plots are same or different in the earlier proceeding and in the subsequent proceeding will be examined by Deputy Director of Consolidation in proper manner. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is required against the impugned order dated 14.3.2013 passed by respondent no.1/revisional court, restoring the revisions under Section 48 of U.P.C.H Act on their original numbers for fresh adjudication of dispute in accordance with law. 14. The writ petition is dismissed. Respondent No.1/ revisional court is directed to decide the revisions in accordance with law after impleading respondent no-2/Chaina Devi as opposite party in both the revisions, expeditiously, preferably within period of 3 months from the date of production of certified Copy of this order before him. ---------- (2026) 1 ILRA 514 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 14.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. Writ C No. 12085 of 2025 Victim X in Fir No. 048 of 2025 P.S. Katra Bazar Distt. Gonda ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents 1 All. Victim X in Fir No. 048 of 2025 P.S. Katra Bazar Distt. Gonda Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 515 ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether, for grant of compensation under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, in a case covered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, the injury report must necessarily indicate penetrative sexual assault injury. HEADNOTE Compensation under Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015 - Scheme is a beneficial legislation and has to be read as a beneficial legislation in a liberal manner - POCSO Act, 2012, Ss 3, 4 - Penetrative sexual assault - For the penetrative sexual assault to be proven, it is not necessary that there be an injury - Absence of injury cannot be a ground to refuse compensation - District Steering Committee cannot conduct a trial - Finding of Steering Committee without any basis in law and contrary to the Scheme - Direction to pay compensation of Rs. 3 lacs within 10 days. HELD: Petitioner, a victim covered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, was aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in providing compensation under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, despite the fact that the charge-sheet had been filed alleging penetrative sexual assault. The District Steering Committee kept the claim of the petitioner in abeyance on the basis that, on basic internal examination and pathological report, no evidence of penetrating injury was found. Court held that the actions as provided in Section 3(a), 3(b), 3(c) and 3(d) of the POCSO Act would amount to penetrative sexual assault and that, for penetrative sexual assault to be proven, it is not necessary that there be an injury that conclusively proves the said penetrative sexual assault. Court further held that any of the actions as prescribed under Section 3 of the POCSO Act would lead to penetrative sexual assault and no further evidence is required for the punishment. Court held that as long as the FIR and the charge-sheet indicate the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, no further investigation is required to be carried out by the Steering Committee and the Steering Committee cannot conduct a trial and come to a contrary finding that, since there is no injury indicated in the injury report, the compensation is not payable. Court directed that the compensation of Rs. 3 lacs be paid to the victim immediately within a period of 10 days. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.(Paras 9, 10, 14, 16-18) (E-5) CASE LAW CITED Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State of Uttaranchal, Criminal Appeal No. 1005 of 2013, decided on 16.01.2025; Lok Mal @ Loku v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2011, decided on 07.03.2025. List of Acts Constitution of India, 1950; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015. List of Keyword Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh ; Penetrative sexual assault; Compensation under victim scheme; POCSO Act; Liberal interpretation; Refusal of compensation; Payment of compensation to victim. CASE ARISING FROM Decision of the District Steering Committee, keeping in abeyance the claim of the petitioner for compensation under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015, on the ground that the medico-legal and pathological reports did not show evidence of penetrating injury. Appearances for Parties Advs For Petitioner: Anjum Ara Advs For Respondents: C.S.C. 516 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. & Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in providing compensation to the petitioner in terms of the scheme of the Government named as 'Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015' (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'). 3. The case of the petitioner is that the victim was sexually assaulted on March 7, 2025 and subsequently, charge sheet has been filed on June 25, 2025. The petitioner relies on serial No.6 of the Annexure No.1 of the scheme, wherein victims covered under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') are entitled to receive aggregate compensation of Rs.3 lacs; firstly, Rs.1 lac is required to be paid within 15 days of filing of the F.I.R. and the balance amount of Rs.2 lacs is to be paid within a month of filing of the charge sheet. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that till date not a single naya paisa has been paid to the petitioner inspite of the charge sheet clearly indicating penetrative sexual assault as per Section 4 of the POCSO Act. 5. Shri Shailesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently argued and placed on record the decision of the U.P. Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh, District Steering Committee- District Gonda, that has kept in abeyance the claim of the petitioner for reasons provided in paragraph 6 of the meeting held on 24.12.2025. The relevant portion of the same is delineated herein-below:- "6- र्नम्न प्रकरण में पीडडत द्वारा मा० उच्च न्यायालय, िडिपीठ लिनऊ में उ०प्र० रानी लक्ष्मीबाई मदहला एवं बाल सम्मान कोष योिनान्तगत आचथतक सहायता ददलाये िाने की प्राथतना की गयी है। जिला संचालन ससमर्त की बैठक में प्रकरण पर पवचार क्रकया गया। प्रकरण में घटना एवं मेडिकोलीगल परीिण के मध्य 01 ददवस का अंतराल होने बाविूद भी मेडिकोलीगल ररपोटत व पैथालॉिी ररपोटत के आर्ार पर नोिल चचक्रकत्सा अचर्कारी द्वारा ददये गये असभमत में Penetrating Sexual Assault का साक्ष्य न पाये िाने का उल्लेि क्रकया गया है, जिसके आर्ार पर ससमर्त द्वारा सम्यक पवचारोपरान्त प्रकरण को इस प्रर्तबंर् के साथ र्नरस्ट्त करते हुए र्नस्ट्ताररत क्रकये िाने का र्नणतय सलया गया क्रक यदद भपवष्य में उनमें मा० न्यायालय द्वारा दोष ससद्चर् का र्नणतय ददया िाता है, जिसके आर्ार पर पीडडत द्वारा उसमें आचथतक सहायता का दावा क्रकया िाता है, तो उक्त प्रकरण को पुनतिीपवत करते हुए आचथतक सहायता के सलए पवचार क्रकया िायेगा।" क आई.िी. नाम मु०अ०सं० र्ारा थाना एफ.आई. आर. र्तचथ 1 All. Victim X in Fir No. 048 of 2025 P.S. Katra Bazar Distt. Gonda Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 517 1 5300600542 KULSUM 48/25 Section 4 POCSO Katra bazar 07-Mar-25 जिला प्रोबेशन अचर्कारी को र्नदेश ददये गये क्रक उक्त प्रकरणों को र्नरस्ट्त करते हुए र्नस्ट्ताररत कराये िाने की कायतवाही सुर्नजश्चत करें। 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that in the present case, an FIR has been lodged and charge sheet has also been filed. He however, submits that the injury report dated March 8, 2025 categorically indicates that on the basic internal examination and pathological report, no evidence of 'penetrating injury' has been found. He supports the decision taken by the steering committee by submitting that the pre requisite for grant of compensation under the present scheme is that there should be injury found in the injury report, which is absent in the present case. He, accordingly, submits that the steering committee has correctly taken a decision that since the injury report indicates no 'penetrative injury', the scheme would not apply in the present case. 7. At the very outset, we would like to bring on record Sections 3 and 4 of the POSCO Act that deal with penetrative sexual assault. Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act are delineated hereinbelow:- "3. Penetrative sexual assault.-A person is said to commit "penetrative sexual assault" if- (a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (b) he inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (c) he manipulates any part of the body of the child so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of the child or makes the child to do so with him or any other person; or (d) he applies his mouth to the penis, vagina, anus, urethra of the child or makes the child to do so to such person or any other person. 4. Punishment for penetrative sexual assault.-(1) Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever commits penetrative sexual assault on a child below sixteen years of age shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine. (3) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim." 8. One may further bring on record the excerpt of the Annexure that provides for provision of monetary compensation for the victims:- S. No. Section of IPC Punishment To whom Amount of Stage of Pre requisites 518 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Special Act provided Compensation payable Compensation Payment for payment 1. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 2. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 3. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 4. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 5. ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ 6. Section 4, POCSO Penetrative Sexual assault Not less than 7 years Victim Rs.3,00,000/- 1. Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid within 15 days as first installment 2. Balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with in one month of charge sheet FIR injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault and charge sheet 9. From a bare perusal of Section 3 read with Section 4 of the POCSO Act, we are of the view that the very actions as provided in Section 3(a), 3(b), 3(c) and 3(d) would amount to penetrative sexual assault and it is clear that for the penetrative sexual assault to be proven, it is not necessary that there be an injury that conclusively proves the said penetrative sexual assault. 10. Furthermore, a catena of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgements has clearly held that any of the actions as prescribed under Section 3 of the POSCO Act would lead to a penetrative sexual assault and no further evidence is required for the punishment as prescribed under Section 4 of the POSCO Act. 11. The Supreme Court in Dalip Kumar @ Dalli v. State Of Uttaranchal (Criminal Appeal No. 1005 of 2013) decided on January 16, 2025 has observed that penetrative sexual assault need not always lead to physical injury. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are quoted herein below: 8. We must caution that bodily injuries are not necessary to prove sexual assault1 and neither it is important to raise a hue or cry. In this regard, the Supreme Court's Handbook on Gender stereotypes(2023) provides as under: "Different people react differently to traumatic events. For example, the death of a parent may cause one person to cry publicly whereas another person in a similar situation may not exhibit any emotion in public. Similarly, a woman's reaction to being sexually assaulted or raped by a man may vary based on her individual characteristics. There is no "correct" or "appropriate" way in which a survivor or victim behaves. 9. It is a common myth that sexual assault must leave injuries. Victims respond to trauma in varied ways, influenced by factors such as fear, shock, social stigma or feelings of helplessness. It is neither realistic nor just to expect a uniform reaction.... (Emphasis added) 12. The Supreme Court in Lok Mal @ Loku v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2011) decided on March 7, 2025 has again reiterated that penetrative sexual 1 All. Victim X in Fir No. 048 of 2025 P.S. Katra Bazar Distt. Gonda Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 519 assault does not always entail physical injury as it depends on the factual matrix of each case. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is quoted herein below: "11. Merely because in the medical evidence, there are no major injury marks, this cannot a be a reason to discard the otherwise reliable evidence of the prosecutrix. It is not necessary that in each and every case where rape is alleged there has to be an injury to the private parts of the victim and it depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case. We reiterate that absence of injuries on the private parts of the victim is not always fatal to the case of the prosecution. According to the version of the prosecutrix, the accused overpowered her and pushed her to bed in spite of her resistance and gagged her mouth using a piece of cloth. Thus, considering this very aspect, it is possible that there were no major injury marks. The appellant made an attempt to raise the defence of false implication, however, he was unable to support his defence by any cogent evidence. Ld. counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is an inordinate delay in lodging complaint and registering 7 FIR. However, considering the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the said delay in lodging of the complaint and registering FIR has been sufficiently explained and is not fatal to the case of the prosecution." (Emphasis added) 13. In light of the same, we are of the view that the pre requisites as are required in the Scheme do not in any manner require that the injury report must definitely indicate a penetrative sexual assault injury. Our reading of the said provision of the Scheme is that for granting benefit to the victim, the three documents, that is, the FIR, the injury report and the charge sheet should be present. 14. As long as the FIR and the charge indicate the offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, no further investigation is required to be carried out by the steering committee and the steering committee cannot conduct a trial and come to a contrary finding that since there is no injury indicated in the injury report, the compensation is not payable. 15. It is to be further noted that the Scheme is a beneficial legislation that aims to ameliorate the trauma and the pain that is suffered by the victims, and accordingly, has to be read as a beneficial legislation in a liberal manner. 16. Under the Scheme, compensation is to be paid to the victim of penetrative sexual assault not because the victim has sustained injuries during the penetrative sexual assault, but due to the very fact of having suffered the penetrative sexual assault. Therefore, till such time, the offence is covered within the definition of penetrative sexual assault as per Section 3 of the POSCO Act, it is immaterial whether there is any injury or not and only because there is no injury that cannot be a ground to refuse compensation to such victims. 17. Ergo, we come to the conclusion that the finding of the steering committee is without any basis in law and contrary to the Scheme. 520 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 18. In light of the same, since charge sheet has already been filed in the present case, we direct the compensation of Rs.3 lacs to be paid to the victim immediately within a period of 10 days from date. 19. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. ---------- (2026) 1 ILRA 520 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. THE HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J. Writ C No. 26221 of 2024 Sunil Kandu @ Sunil Kumar Gupta ...Petitioner Versus Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs & Ors. ...Respondents ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether Constitutional Court can grant compensation to a person who has been subjected to wrongful arrest and detention in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. HEADNOTE Compensation for wrongful arrest and detention - Constitution of India, Article 21 - Procedure established by law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 41(1)(ba) - Arrest and detention in police lock-up cause incalculable harm to reputation and self-esteem - Fundamental right under Article 21 infringed by arbitrary and capricious action on the part of arresting police personnel - Petitioner a helpless victim of that act - Constitutional Courts can grant compensation - Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded. HELD: Petitioner sought compensation for wrongful arrest and detention. The allegation against the petitioner was of molestation and attempt to rape. There was nothing on record, nor anything produced before the Court, to show that some investigation had been made pursuant to the information received for having reason to believe that the petitioner had committed the alleged offence. Court held that the police did not have "credible information" that the petitioner had committed the alleged offence and that the arrest of the petitioner was not in accordance with the "procedure established by law". Court held that constitutional courts can grant compensation. The Court awarded compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the petitioner, to be paid by respondent No. 2 within four weeks. Court reiterated that no arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence; that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of the complaint and a reasonable belief as to the person's complicity and the need to effect arrest; and that the police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so.(Paras 15-20) Writ petition allowed.(E-5)