As per case facts, the appellant, Zonunmawii, was accused of inducing a minor girl into prostitution and was convicted and sentenced by the trial court under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) ... Act, 1956, POCSO Act, 2012, and Indian Penal Code. The appellant filed an appeal, arguing that she was prejudiced because charges for abetment under Section 376/109 IPC and Section 17 POCSO Act were not formally framed against her, and that the trial court erred in relying on a co-accused's statement and contradictory evidence. The question arose whether the omission to frame specific charges for abetment caused a failure of justice for the appellant and if the conviction was justified by the evidence. Finally, the High Court found that the particulars of the offense explained to the appellant clearly indicated charges of abetment, and mere omission of specific section numbers in the charge sheet did not cause prejudice. The court upheld the conviction, finding sufficient evidence from prosecution witnesses and electronic communication, even disregarding the co-accused's statement.