Delhi High Court: Lack of Identifiable Victims Not Ground to Discharge in CSEM Cases

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the absence of identifiable victims or conclusive proof of age cannot be a valid ground to discharge accused persons in cases involving Child Sexual Exploitation Material (CSEM), reinforcing a victim-centric and purpose-driven interpretation of the law.

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma set aside a Sessions Court order that had discharged the accused in a case registered under Section 15(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, read with Section 67B of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 120B of the IPC.

“In contrast, the present case concerns the applicability of Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act, which deals with punishment for storing, collecting, and further transmitting CSEM. 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. Applying such stringent requirements would effectively deny justice to the victims, as most would never be traced for obvious reasons, thereby rendering the protective framework of the law ineffective”, the Court observed.

The case arose from an FIR alleging storage and circulation of sexually explicit material involving children through digital platforms. During investigation, electronic devices were seized and multiple videos depicting minors in explicit acts were recovered. However, the trial court discharged the accused, citing inability to identify victims or conclusively determine their age.

Rejecting this approach, the High Court held that such a rigid and technical interpretation would undermine the very objective of the POCSO framework. “If, on this ground alone, accused persons are discharged… it would have far-reaching consequences and would leave countless children unprotected,” the Court observed.

The Bench emphasized that offences under Section 15(2) are not merely punitive but preventive in nature, aimed at dismantling the ecosystem of digital exploitation. It clarified that at the stage of framing charges, courts are only required to assess whether a prima facie case exists, and not conclusively determine the age of victims through documentary or medical evidence.

Importantly, the Court noted that the statutory definition of child pornography under the POCSO Act includes material that “appears to depict a child,” indicating legislative intent to move away from rigid evidentiary requirements. It held that courts can rely on expert opinions, forensic analysis, and even a reasonable visual assessment of the material to determine whether the content falls within the ambit of the law.

The Court also criticised the Sessions Court for ignoring expert findings, noting that two independent experts had opined that the material depicted minors engaged in sexually explicit acts. Such evidence, it held, was sufficient to meet the threshold required at the stage of charge.

“To conclude, this Court finds that the learned Sessions Court erred in discharging respondent nos. 2 and 3 of the offence under Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act solely on the ground that the age of the children depicted in the CSEM had not been conclusively determined. The learned Sessions Court failed to give due consideration to the opinions of two experts, who had categorically opined that the pornographic videos depicted children engaged in sexually explicit acts. The said expert opinions clearly satisfy the test of subjective satisfaction, which was not properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Court. Further, this Court is of the considered view that upon a perusal of the material placed on record along with the chargesheet, it prima facie emerges that respondent nos. 2 and 3 had stored and possessed CSEM and had also transmitted the same through various WhatsApp groups. The material collected during investigation thus sufficiently satisfies the essential ingredients of Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act, at the stage of charge”, the Court observed.

Highlighting the realities of digital crimes, the Court observed that victims in CSEM cases are often unidentified and untraceable, making traditional methods of proof impractical. Insisting on strict age determination, it said, would allow offenders to escape prosecution due to procedural impossibilities.

Setting aside the discharge order, the High Court directed that charges be framed against the accused under the relevant provisions of the POCSO Act, IT Act, and IPC.

The ruling marks a significant step in adapting legal standards to the challenges posed by online child exploitation, ensuring that procedural limitations do not defeat substantive justice.

Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion Vs. State and Ors.

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Date of Judgment: 04.04.2026