As per case facts, the appellant was convicted for sexually assaulting his step-daughter, a minor girl. The victim disclosed the repeated assaults by her step-father, which occurred over a period ... while she lived with him. A medical examination corroborated penetrative sexual assault. The defense challenged the victim's credibility, citing discrepancies, potential tutoring, and financial motives behind the complaint, along with a significant delay in filing the FIR. The question arose as to whether the appellant was correctly convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, given the ambiguity regarding the victim's precise age at the time of the offence (potentially 11 or 12 years old) and the explained delay in the FIR. Finally, the Court found the penetrative sexual assault proven. However, resolving the age ambiguity in favor of the accused, the conviction under Section 6 was set aside, and the appellant was instead convicted under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act for committing penetrative sexual assault on a child below 16 years, with the same sentence of twenty years rigorous imprisonment and fine.