As per case facts, the accused sexually assaulted a young victim by touching her private parts, biting her, and inserting his finger after luring her to his house. The victim ... reported the incident to her mother, and an FIR was filed a few days later due to a family emergency. The accused appealed, challenging the victim's age proof, medical evidence, FIR delay, and the method of history narration. The question arose whether the prosecution adequately proved the victim's age as below 12 years for specific POCSO charges, considering the hierarchy of age-determining documents, and if the sexual assault charges were sustainable despite alleged inconsistencies and delayed reporting. Finally, the court found the victim's testimony credible and corroborated, upholding convictions for sexual assault under IPC and most POCSO sections. However, charges requiring the victim to be below 12 years were set aside due to insufficient precise age proof, though her minority (below 16 years) was confirmed. The court emphasized that Aadhaar cards are not conclusive age proof and a child victim's initial silence to a doctor does not negate a strong case.