As per case facts, the Appellant was convicted under the POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor and sentenced to twenty years imprisonment. The Appellant appealed, arguing ... that the victim's age was not adequately proven, medical reports did not substantiate sexual assault, and the chain of circumstances did not favor the prosecution. He also contended that the victim's claim of consent should invalidate the charges and that the Trial Court improperly relied on her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement. The question arose whether the Trial Court's findings regarding the victim's age and the allegations of penetrative sexual assault against the Appellant were fortified by the evidence on record. Finally, the Court upheld the Trial Court's judgment, confirming the victim's minority status based on birth and school records. It was established that penetrative sexual assault occurred, reiterating that a minor's consent is irrelevant. The court acknowledged the victim's testimony of 'bad touch' and sexual intercourse, supported by medical evidence of sexual activity, while noting the Trial Court's erroneous reliance on the Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement as substantive evidence.