Accused In Child Pornography Cases Cannot Be Discharged Merely Because Age Of Unidentified Victims Cannot Be Conclusively Proved: Delhi High Court

"In cases of this nature, the victims depicted in such material are most often unidentified and untraceable; their parentage and addresses remain unknown, and they cannot be produced before the Court. In such circumstances, the rigid application of the age-determination procedure under Section 34 of the POCSO Act read with Section 94 of the JJ Act would be wholly impractical and unjust," Delhi High Court.

Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, held that individuals accused of possessing and transmitting child pornographic material cannot be discharged solely because the precise age of the unidentified victims cannot be conclusively established through documentary or medical evidence. A bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that insisting on strict objective age-determination criteria in cyber cases involving unidentified child victims would render the law unworkable and defeat the very object of the statute.

The High Court was hearing a suo motu revision petition arising from an order of the Sessions Court, which had discharged two accused persons of offences under Section 15(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The trial court had reasoned that since the children in the recovered pornographic videos were unidentified, their age could not be scientifically or medically verified. The Central Bureau of Investigation had originally chargesheeted the accused after recovering multiple videos depicting child sexual exploitation material (CSEM) from their mobile phones and hard disks.

The primary question before the court was whether the rigid age-determination procedure under Section 34 of the POCSO Act must be strictly applied in cases involving online child sexual exploitation material where victims are untraceable. The court was also called upon to determine whether the subjective satisfaction test under Section 2(1)(da) of the POCSO Act suffices to frame charges against an accused under Section 15(2) of the Act.

Distinction Between Identifiable And Unidentified Victims

The court noted that the regular age-determination procedure under Section 34 of the POCSO Act and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act applies primarily when the victim is identifiable, traceable, and physically available before the court. Justice Sharma observed that in cases involving the storage and transmission of child sexual abuse material, the victims are almost invariably untraceable. The bench noted that their parentage and addresses remain unknown, making it impossible to produce them for age verification.

Strict Age Proof Impractical For Cyber Offences

The bench held that applying stringent age-determination requirements to online pornography cases would effectively deny justice to countless victims. The court observed that most children depicted in such materials would never be traced for obvious reasons, thereby rendering the protective framework of the law completely ineffective. Justice Sharma emphasised that discharging accused persons merely because conventional methods of age verification cannot be deployed would result in a grave miscarriage of justice.

"If, on this ground alone, accused persons are discharged of offences under Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act, it would have far-reaching consequences and would leave countless children unprotected – children who may not even be aware that sexually explicit videos depicting them are circulating online and being viewed by numerous individuals."

Subjective Satisfaction Test Applies

Analyzing the statutory framework, the court highlighted that Section 15 must be read harmoniously with Section 2(1)(da) of the POCSO Act, which defines child pornography to include visual depictions that merely "appear to depict a child". Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, the bench held that the legislature consciously departed from rigid objective standards when dealing with visual depictions of sexually explicit acts. The court noted that it suffices if an ordinary prudent person would reasonably believe the material prima facie depicts a child.

Expert Opinion Sufficient For Framing Charges

Applying the legal principles to the facts, the court noted that medical experts from Maulana Azad Medical College and officials from the Delhi Commission for Women had examined the recovered videos. These experts had opined that based on physical development and secondary sexual characteristics, the individuals depicted were clearly children below eighteen years of age. The court held that such expert opinions, coupled with forensic confirmation of data transmission, perfectly satisfy the test of subjective satisfaction required to frame charges.

The High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the trial court's order discharging the accused under Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act. The Sessions Court was directed to immediately frame charges against the accused persons under the POCSO Act, alongside provisions of Section 67B of the Information Technology Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and to proceed with the trial in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: 04 April 2026