The key legal point established in this judgment is the crucial importance of determining the age of the victim in cases under the POCSO Act before proceeding with the trial. The court emphasized that establishing the foundational fact that the victim is a child (below 18 years) is a prerequisite for the court's jurisdiction and for the validity of the proceedings (!) (!) .

The court highlighted that the prosecution bears the primary responsibility to prove the victim's age, especially when the case involves a child as defined under the Act. This involves following the proper procedures, including the application of Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, to accurately determine the victim's age through appropriate evidence such as medical or documentary proof (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the court clarified that the issue of age is a fundamental fact that can be raised at any stage of the proceedings, including on appeal, if it was not properly established initially. The failure to establish the victim's age properly can invalidate the trial and subsequent conviction under the POCSO Act (!) .

In this specific case, the court found that the age of the victim was not conclusively established through proper procedures or evidence, and therefore, the trial court's jurisdiction was questionable. As a result, the court directed the trial court to determine the victim's age in accordance with the prescribed rules and procedures, allowing the parties to produce relevant evidence and be heard on this issue (!) .

Ultimately, the judgment set aside the previous conviction and remanded the case to the Special Court for age determination, emphasizing that such foundational facts must be established before further proceedings or judgments are made under the POCSO Act (!) (!) .