State cannot deny compensation to rape victims for not producing medical report: Allahabad High Court
- Case
- Ms. X v. State of U.P.
- Court
- Allahabad High Court
- Bench
- Justice Rahul Chaturvedi
- Citation
- 2024 SCC OnLine All 1093
- Decided
- Statutes
- Source
- Bar & Bench
In Ms. X v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 1093, decided on 2024-05-09, the Allahabad High Court held that the State cannot deny compensation to rape victims solely for not producing a medical report, emphasizing that the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC (or BNSS) is sufficient for interim compensation under Section 357A CrPC (or BNSS).
Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established
The State cannot deny compensation to a rape victim merely because a medical report is not produced. A victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (or Section 192 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is sufficient for the grant of interim compensation under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (or Section 460 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates
Advocates should emphasize the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC/BNSS as primary evidence for compensation claims, even without a medical report. Litigants should be aware that the absence of a medical report does not automatically bar their right to interim compensation in rape cases.
Key Legal Takeaways
- 1Medical reports are not mandatory for interim compensation in rape cases.
- 2A victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC/BNSS is sufficient for interim compensation.
- 3The State has an obligation to provide compensation under Section 357A CrPC/BNSS.
The Legal Issue
The Allahabad High Court addressed whether the State could deny compensation to a rape victim solely on the ground that a medical report was not produced. The case involved a victim seeking compensation under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (or Section 460 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)), where the State had resisted the claim due to the absence of a medical examination report.
Court's Reasoning
Justice Rahul Chaturvedi, presiding over the case of Ms. X v. State of U.P., held that the State cannot deny compensation to a rape victim merely for the non-production of a medical report. The Court emphasized that the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC (or Section 192 BNSS) is sufficient for the grant of interim compensation. The bench noted that the State's obligation to provide compensation under Section 357A CrPC (or Section 460 BNSS) is not contingent upon the availability of a medical report. The Court highlighted that the purpose of compensation is to provide immediate relief to victims, and imposing such a condition would defeat the legislative intent. The Court clarified that for a new proceeding, counsel must confirm whether the CrPC or BNSS provision applies, and for evidence, counsel should confirm whether the IEA or BSA applies.
What Follows
The Allahabad High Court directed the State to process the compensation claim of the victim without insisting on the production of a medical report. The Court reiterated that the victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC (or Section 192 BNSS) is adequate for this purpose. The State is now obligated to ensure that compensation is disbursed to the victim in accordance with the provisions of Section 357A CrPC (or Section 460 BNSS), without further delay or additional conditions related to medical reports.