As per case facts, on December 30, 2020, the victim girl's uncle filed an FIR alleging that on October 12, 2020, the appellant sexually assaulted his 10-year-old niece. The appellant ... was charged under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, but convicted under Section 10 of the same Act. The appeal challenged the conviction based on delayed FIR, uncorroborated testimony, victim's conduct, and procedural lapse in charge alteration. The question arose whether procedural lapses, like delayed FIR, absence of preliminary examination of minor witnesses, and conviction under a different section, invalidated the conviction. Finally, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that delayed FIR was explained by the victim's minor age and shock. It found the victim's testimony credible and corroborated by a friend. The Court also held that conviction under Section 10 instead of Section 6 did not cause demonstrable prejudice as the particulars of the lesser offence were covered in the initial charge.