The appellant, Pulak Deka, was convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for penetrative sexual assault on a 6-year-old girl. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the written FIR was not the actual FIR, but rather a statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. The prosecution argued that the medical evidence and the victim's statement corroborated the charge of penetrative sexual assault. The court ultimately upheld the conviction.