Lilaben vs State of Gujarat 2025 case gained attention because the Gujarat High Court questioned the victim’s age despite a conclusive trial court finding. It raised important concerns about judicial reasoning in suspending sentences in serious offences under the POCSO Act. The public and legal experts closely followed the matter as it balanced an accused's liberty with victims' rights and societal expectations. Discover more in-depth analyses of important Supreme Court decisions by exploring Recent Judgements of Supreme Court.

Lilaben vs State of Gujarat 2025 Introduction

The case of Lilaben vs State of Gujarat 2025 where the Supreme Court examined the legality of suspending the sentence of a man convicted under the POCSO Act and Indian Penal Code for sexually assaulting a minor. The case originated when the victim’s mother challenged the Gujarat High Court’s decision to grant the convict bail during the pendency of his appeal.

Download Lilaben vs State of Gujarat 2025 Free PDF

Lilaben vs State of Gujarat 2025 Historical Context and Facts

The case at hand centres around the suspension of sentence granted by the High Court to a man convicted under the POCSO Act and Indian Penal Code for sexually assaulting a minor girl. The appeal filed by the victim’s mother challenged the order of High Court. The case raised concerns over the questionable reasoning related to the victim’s age and the application of legal standards under Section 389 of Criminal Procedure Code. The following are the facts of Lilaben vs State of Gujarat -

Facts of the Case

The present appeal is filed by the mother of a minor girl, who was the victim of a sexual offence. An FIR was registered at Anklav Police Station, District Anand under the following provisions:

• Sections 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
• Section 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012

The accused, Jigresh Kumar alias Jigo Rajubhai Padhiyar who was a 23-year-old labourer from Asodar village, was arrested and prosecuted.

Trial Court Conviction

After trial, the Special POCSO Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Anand, convicted the accused under the following provisions:

• Section 363 IPC: 3 years of rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 1,000 fine (1-month simple imprisonment in default)
• Section 366(A) IPC: 5 years of rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 2,000 fine (2-month simple imprisonment in default)
• Section 6 of the POCSO Act: 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 5,000 fine (3-month simple imprisonment in default)

The Special POCSO Court ordered the sentences to run concurrently and granted a set-off for the period already undergone in custody.

Suspension of Sentence by High Court

Aggrieved by the decision of the Special POCSO Judge, the accused approached the High Court for suspension of sentence by filing an appeal against the decision. The Division Bench of the High Court noted that the victim’s age was not conclusively proved. Although the prosecution submitted a birth certificate and Panchayat records, the person who produced them (PW-7) lacked personal knowledge of the entries, rendering the documents unreliable.

As a result, the High Court suspended the sentence pending the appeal and granted bail on the following conditions:

• The accused must furnish a bond of Rs. 10,000 with one surety
• He shall not leave India without the High Court’s permission
• He shall not enter Village Asodar, Taluka Anklav, for two years
• He shall not change his address, and must inform the police station and High Court if he does

Grounds of Appeal

The minor’s mother, aggrieved by the suspension of sentence, filed the present appeal. Her primary contentions include:

• The High Court wrongly considered that the victim had voluntarily run away with the accused and initiated a physical relationship. In fact, she first met the accused in 2019, when she was just eleven years old, and he had been harassing her since.
• The findings of the High Court on the victim’s age being doubtful is contrary to law. The appellant referred to Section 34 of the POCSO Act and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which lay down procedures for determining a minor’s age.
• The Appellant contended that suspension of sentence is an exception, not the norm and relied on Shivani Tyagi v. State of U.P., 2024.

​

The Supreme Court mainly dealt with the correctness and legality of the High Court's order suspending the sentence under Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The following sub issues were also addressed in Lilaben vs State of Gujarat 2025:

• Whether the High Court was justified in suspending the sentence of a convicted person under Section 389(1) of Criminal Procedure Code despite the gravity of the offence?
• The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court’s discretionary power under Section 389 was exercised in a legally sustainable manner?
• Whether the High Court could cast doubt upon the factual findings of the Trial Court regarding the victim’s age while exercising power under Section 389 of Criminal Procedure Code?
  The Supreme Court in Lilaben vs State of Gujarat observed that such findings could only be challenged under Appellate jurisdiction and not while considering suspension of sentence under Section 389 CrPC.
• Whether the High Court's order failed to consider the larger public interest and societal expectations while suspending sentence?
  The Apex Court highlighted the importance of balancing individual liberty with public expectations especially in cases involving serious crimes.

Lilaben vs State of Gujarat 2025 Legal Provisions

Section 389 of Criminal Procedure Code played an important role in Lilaben vs State of Gujarat 2025. The following is the analysis of this provision:

Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 389(1) of Criminal Procedure Code (Now Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) states that pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended.

This was the main section which was invoked by the High Court to suspend the sentence of Respondent No. 2 during the pendency of the criminal appeal. The Supreme Court in Lilaben vs State of Gujarat examined whether the High Court followed the correct procedure and recorded sufficient reasons.

Lilaben vs State of Gujarat 2025 Judgment and Impact

The 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra in Lilaben vs State of Gujarat acknowledged several arguments which had been raised especially with regard to the High Court’s assessment of facts limited its review strictly to the legality of the High Court’s exercise of powers under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The Bench referred to previous rulings including Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab and Afzal Ansari v. State of U.P., the Court highlighted that suspension of sentence does not annul the conviction, it merely postpones its execution and this must be backed by sound reasoning. The power is meant to ensure justice and avoid undue hardship due to delayed appeals, the rights of the victim and broader public interest must also be preserved.

In the present case Lilaben vs State of Gujarat, since the Trial Court had conclusively found the victim to be a minor and had convicted Respondent No. 2 for serious offences under the POCSO Act and Indian Penal Code, the High Court’s casting of doubt on the victim’s age at the stage of suspension under Section 389 of Criminal Procedure Code was deemed inappropriate. That issue was more appropriately to be examined during the full appeal under Section 374 of CrPC.

The Court in Lilaben vs State of Gujarat held that until and unless the High Court reverses or alters the conviction, the finding of guilt must stand. Given the grievous nature of the offence and the fact that the accused was already convicted and sentenced to 20 years of imprisonment, the Supreme Court found no justifiable basis for the High Court to suspend the sentence.

On the basis of the above findings, the Supreme Court in Lilaben vs State of Gujarat allowed the appeal filed by the victim’s mother, directed Respondent No. 2 to surrender immediately and clarified that he may seek regular bail only if the appeal is not heard within eighteen months.

Conclusion

In Lilaben vs State of Gujarat 2025 the Supreme Court on 21st April, 2025 set aside the Gujarat High Court’s order and reinforced that sentence suspension under Section 389 of Criminal Procedure Code must be based on valid legal grounds, especially in grave offences. It directed the convict to surrender and upheld the victim’s right to justice.