$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 05.01.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 04.04.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 04.04.2026 + CRL.REV.P. 691/2024 COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Aasha Tiwari, Advocate/

Amicus Curiae with Mr.

Puneet Narula, Advocate.

Versus STATE AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mrs. Anubha Bhardwaj, SPP for CBI along with Ms. Anchal Kashyap and Mr. Vijay Misra, Advocates.

Mr. Nitin Chaudhary and Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

Index to the Judgment INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 2 FACTUAL BACKGROUND .................................................................. 3 SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT ............................................. 6 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS ..................................................................... 8 A. Section 15(2) of POCSO Act ..................................................................... 9 B. Meaning of ‘Child’ under POCSO Act .................................................. 11 C. Interpretation of ‘Child’ in the Context of Child Pornographic Material under the POCSO Act .................................................................... 13 D. Application of the Test of Subjective Satisfaction to the Material on Record ............................................................................................................... 18 E. The Decision ............................................................................................. 20 DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J INTRODUCTION

1. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by one Tulir Charitable Trust, assailing the order dated 01.09.2023 [hereafter ‗impugned order‘] passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Court-POCSO), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts [hereafter ‗Sessions Court‘] in SC 18/2022, whereby the respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein were discharged of offences under Section 15(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [hereafter ‗POCSO Act‘]. Guidelines were also sought with respect to cases involving Child Sexual Abuse Material of unidentified child/children online or offline. The PIL came to be listed before the Division Bench-I.

2. By way of judgment dated 09.05.2024, the Division Bench–I observed that the prayer seeking formulation of guidelines for the benefit of POCSO Special Courts dealing with cases involving Child Sexual Abuse Material of unidentified child/children was not required to be considered in the present case, as sufficient legal provisions already exist to deal with such situations. It was further noted that, vide the impugned order, the learned Sessions Court had held that the provisions of Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act could not be invoked against the accused persons in the absence of any criteria for determining the age of the children appearing in the pornographic videos and photographs. On that basis, the learned Sessions Court had discharged the said respondents of the offence under Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act. Division Bench–I, after taking note of the scheme of the POCSO Act and certain judicial precedents, expressed a prima facie view that the findings recorded in the impugned order suffered from manifest illegalities and had resulted in miscarriage of justice.

3. Accordingly, the PIL was converted into the present suo motu revision petition and was thereafter listed before this Court. During the course of proceedings, the Union of India was deleted from the array of parties, and an amended memo of parties was placed on record. The trial court proceedings were stayed vide order dated

21.05.2024.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that upon receiving information from a reliable source, an FIR bearing No. RC- 20(S)/2021/CBI/SC-III/New Delhi was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Raman Gautam (respondent no. 2)