Subjective satisfaction regarding appearance suffices for Section 15 POCSO offences involving unidentified digital victims.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR against Respondent No. 2 (Raman Gautam) and others for the transmission and storage of Child Sexual Exploitation Material (CSEM) under the IT Act and IPC

Searches conducted at the residence of Respondent No. 2 led to the seizure of a hard disk and mobile phone containing 48 pornographic videos depicting children

Further investigation revealed that Respondent No. 3 (Sandeep Singh) had transmitted this material to Respondent No. 2 and was in possession of 25 similar videos

Both were chargesheeted under Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act, Section 67B of the IT Act, and Section 120B of the IPC

The Special POCSO Court discharged the respondents of the offence under Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act, reasoning that in the absence of identified victims, documentary proof, or scientific age-determination tests (e.g., ossification), the mandatory criteria for establishing the subjects as "children" were not met

The High Court initiated this suo motu revision to examine the legality of the discharge

The Court primarily applied Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act, which penalizes the storage or possession of pornographic material involving a child for transmission or distribution

It interpreted the definition of "child" under Section 2(1)(d) alongside the definition of "child pornography" under Section 2(1)(da), the latter of which includes images that "appear to depict a child"

The Court relied on the precedent of Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish (2024), which established that for offences relating to child pornography, courts must form a prima facie "subjective satisfaction" based on the perspective of an ordinary prudent person rather than relying solely on objective age-determination procedures under Section 34 of the POCSO Act or Section 94 of the JJ Act

The Court observed that while Section 34 of the POCSO Act and Section 94 of the JJ Act provide objective criteria for age determination, these are applicable when the victim is identifiable and physically available

In cases of CSEM involving unidentified victims, the Court held that a rigid application of these sections would frustrate the legislative intent and render Section 15(2) unworkable

The Court emphasized that Section 2(1)(da) was specifically amended to include material that "appears to depict a child," signifying a legislative departure from strict objective age-testing in pornography cases

Applying this to the facts, the Court noted that two medical experts (PW-9 and PW-9(1)) had opined, based on secondary sexual characteristics, that the individuals in the videos appeared to be under 18 years of age

Furthermore, statements from Delhi Commission for Women officials and forensic reports from the CFSL prima facie established the storage and transmission of CSEM by the respondents

Consequently, the Court found that the "subjective satisfaction" test was met

It held that conclusive objective age determination is not a prerequisite for framing charges in child pornography cases if the material, to an ordinary prudent mind, appears to involve a child

The Court directed the Sessions Court to frame charges against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 15(2) of the POCSO Act and proceed with the trial in accordance with law