As per case facts, a 6-year-old victim, 'A', was sexually assaulted by the appellant Vikas. The incident happened when Vikas called her into a room, removed their clothes, and touched ... her, but a friend's intervention prevented completion. Victim's mother reported the incident, leading to Vikas's arrest and conviction by the Trial Court under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376AB of the IPC. The appellant appealed, citing charge defects, delays in investigation, and victim statement discrepancies, particularly regarding penetration. The question arose whether the evidence proved full penetration for 'aggravated penetrative sexual assault' (Section 6 POCSO Act) or an 'attempt' (Section 18 POCSO Act). Finally, the High Court found doubts about actual penetration, setting aside the Section 6 and Section 376AB convictions. Instead, Vikas was held guilty under Section 18 of the POCSO Act for 'attempt to commit aggravated penetrative sexual assault', and his rigorous imprisonment was reduced to ten years. Conviction under Section 342 IPC was upheld.