As per case facts, a minor victim girl and her mother were living with her grandmother. The first accused committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault and paid money to the victim. ... The second accused (appellant) also committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on separate occasions. A third accused died during investigation. A Child Helpline Supervisor informed the police, leading to an FIR under POCSO Act and IPC. The victim was found pregnant. The trial court convicted both accused. The appeal was filed, arguing a huge delay in lodging the complaint, and that the joint trial for distinct offenses by different accused on separate dates, times, and places caused prejudice, especially due to the same questionnaire used for Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements, thereby vitiating the trial. The question arose whether the joint trial caused prejudice to the appellant and if the procedural irregularities invalidated the conviction. Finally, the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that no prejudice was proven to the appellant due to the joint trial or the Section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning, noting that the victim was the same and similar offenses were committed, thus confirming the lower court's judgment.