Delhi HC: Lack of Age Proof for Unidentified Child Victims No Bar to Charging Under Section 15(2) POCSO Act - 2026-06-04

Beyond the Impossible: Delhi High Court Upholds POCSO Charges for Anonymous Victim Material

In a significant judicial development aimed at tightening the net on the circulation of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSEM), the Delhi High Court has ruled that the prosecution is not required to provide conclusive age-proof documentation for unidentified child victims to sustain charges under Section 15(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The ruling by Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma sets aside a lower court order that had previously discharged suspects due to the impossibility of proving the precise age of the anonymous children appearing in pornographic content.

The Genesis of the Dispute

The case originated after the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conducted searches under Section 165 of the Cr.P.C. in 2021, uncovering numerous videos depicting children in sexually explicit acts on devices belonging to respondents Raman Gautam and Sandeep Singh. While the CBI chargesheeted the individuals for possession and distribution of CSEM, the Additional Sessions Court at Karkardooma discharged them on the ground that the children were unidentified, and no scientific method could definitively prove they were under 18 years of age. This outcome prompted a suo motu revision petition by the High Court to correct what it termed a "miscarriage of justice."

Arguments from the Bar

The Amicus Curiae argued that demanding strict, objective age verification for unidentified victims would effectively render the POCSO Acttoothless, as most CSEM victims remain digitally untraceable. The CBI supported this, contending that the trial court’s approach was "perverse" and ignored the legislative intent to protect children regardless of whether they can be individually identified. Conversely, the defense maintained that without proof of age, the core definition of "child" under the Act remained unfulfilled, making the invocation of Section 15(2) legally unsustainable.

The "Subjective Satisfaction" Test

The High Court’s reasoning hinged on a crucial distinction between the general application of the POCSO Act and the specific requirements for prosecuting child pornography. Justice Sharma noted that Section 2(1)(da) of the Act, which defines "child pornography," includes images or videos that "appear to depict a child."

Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent holding in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish , the Court emphasized that where conclusive age-grading is impossible due to the anonymity of the victims, courts must apply the test of "subjective satisfaction." This principle allows the judiciary to rely on expert opinions—such as forensic and developmental evaluations—and the visual assessment of material by a "prudent person" to form a prima facie belief that the individuals depicted are children.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the danger of a hyper-technical approach to digital crime:

• On Legislative Intent: "The legislature was well aware, that if the proof of age in offences pertaining to child pornography... would also have to be assessed by the existing objective test, it would lead to a very chilling effect, whereby the entire Section 15 of the POCSO could be rendered unworkable."
• On Practical Challenges: "Any visual depiction of a sexually explicit act which any ordinary person of a prudent mind would reasonably believe to prima facie depict a child or appear to involve a child, would be deemed as ‘child pornography’ for the purposes of the POCSO."
• The Threshold of Evidence: "The statements recorded during the course of investigation, the expert opinions, and the other material placed on record prima facie indicate that the videos recovered... depict children engaged in sexually explicit acts. Consequently, the test of subjective satisfaction stands duly met."

A New Standard for Future Cases

The Delhi High Court has directed the trial court to frame charges against the accused persons and proceed with the trial. By clarifying that Section 15(2) must be read in harmony with the definition of child pornography, the Court has provided a vital legal pathway for prosecution in cases where the victim remains a "hidden" participant in horrific digital archives. This decision ensures that perpetrators of CSEM cannot hide behind the cloak of victim anonymity to escape the reach of the law.