As per case facts, the victim's father reported sexual assault by the Appellant. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under the POCSO Act. The Appellant appealed, arguing the prosecution failed ... to prove the victim's minority, lacked evidence for penetrative sexual assault, and presented inconsistent victim statements. The question arose whether the Trial Court's findings were guided by legal principles and if the conviction was correct, especially concerning the victim's age and the nature of the assault. Finally, the High Court found that the prosecution did not prove the victim's minority beyond reasonable doubt, citing unverified documents and insufficient oral evidence. It also concluded that evidence was inconclusive for penetrative sexual assault, as medical reports showed no clear signs of injury or seminal stains, and the doctor could not definitively link observed conditions to such an assault. The victim's own testimony lacked specific details of the act. Thus, the High Court set aside the original conviction, finding that while some sexual assault occurred, penetrative assault was not proven. The Appellant was instead convicted under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC for physical contact and advances involving unwelcome explicit sexual overtures, and sentenced to three years imprisonment and a fine.