As per case facts, an FIR was lodged by the victim girl's father alleging that the appellant, her volleyball coach, took his minor daughter to Guwahati for a selection game, ... but she didn't return as expected. Subsequently, the girl returned, and charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 366/376(3) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court. The defense challenged the conviction, citing inconsistencies in the victim's statements, lack of clear proof of her minority, and an ossification test suggesting she was older. The prosecution maintained that the offense was proven and statutory presumptions applied. The question arose whether the appellant's conviction for sexual assault and kidnapping could be sustained given the inconsistencies and infirmities in the victim's testimony and the medical evidence not being conclusive regarding sexual intercourse, especially when the victim's testimony was not of "sterling quality" and the father had given permission for her to go with the appellant. Finally, the court found the victim's testimony suffered from significant inconsistencies and infirmities, failing to meet the standard of a "sterling witness." Medical evidence was not conclusive about sexual intercourse, and the father's initial permission for her to accompany the appellant negated the element of kidnapping. Consequently, the conviction under IPC and POCSO Act was set aside, and the appellant was ordered to be set at liberty.