The appellant Horen Bhuyan challenged his conviction under Section 363 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, by the Special Judge (POCSO), Golaghat, for kidnapping and committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor victim and making her pregnant. The appellant argued that the victim's age was not proved beyond doubt because the school Admission Register entry lacked a proven basis, relying on Birad Mal Singhvi vs. Anand Purohit (AIR 1988 SC 1796), and that the charges were defective under Section 211(3) CrPC since the pregnancy predated the alleged offence date of 07.05.2021. The Gauhati High Court examined Sections 215 and 464 CrPC and found that the error or omission in the framing of the charge did not mislead the appellant and caused no failure of justice, as the appellant was clearly aware throughout the trial that he was charged with raping the victim and causing her pregnancy. The court also noted the Supreme Court's position in Birad Mal Singhvi that entries in a school register have no probative value unless the person who made the entry or provided the date of birth is examined, raising a question about the sufficiency of age proof. The judgment text provided ends before the final order is recorded.