Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Suspending Sentence in POCSO Conviction and Directs Surrender

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra heard an appeal filed by the mother of a minor victim challenging the Gujarat High Court's order suspending the sentence of an accused convicted under Sections 363, 366(A), 376(3) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The appeal raised the narrow question of the correctness and legality of the High Court's exercise of power under Section 389 CrPC in suspending sentence pending appeal.

The Court allowed the appeal, held that the High Court erred in suspending the sentence, and directed the accused to surrender forthwith. The Court emphasised that suspension under Section 389 stayed only the execution of the sentence and did not obliterate the conviction; it observed that doubts cast on a trial court's finding, which had not been set aside, were not a proper basis for suspension. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Till and such time, the finding of the Trial Court is examined independently by the High Court, and proven to be incorrect, it has to be taken as the position in law. So, at the present moment, it is proven that Respondent No.2 has committed the offences for which he stands convicted, subject to confirmation or setting aside by the High Court in the pending appeal. Considering this, and also the nature of offence on one hand, and his age on the other, in the attending facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view, that the High Court ought not to have suspended the sentence as was imposed by the Trial Court.” The Court reiterated the settled principle that relief under Section 389 was an exception and should be exercised cautiously, noting earlier observations that “it would indeed be a travesty of justice to keep a person in jail for a period of five or six years for an offence which is ultimately found not to have been committed by him,” but held that such considerations did not apply on the facts before it.

Background The dispute arose from FIR No.11215003220383 dated 4.8.2022 registered at Anklav Police Station, District Anand, alleging sexual assault on a minor. The trial court convicted the accused (Respondent No.2) and sentenced him to concurrent terms, including 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The High Court suspended the sentence pending appeal, observing doubt about the victim’s age because the entries produced from the Panchayat register and a birth certificate were supported by PW‑7 who had no personal knowledge of their origin; the High Court granted bail on conditions including bond, non‑departure from India and restrictions on entering the village.

The appellant (the victim’s mother) challenged the suspension before this Court. The Supreme Court limited its review to the propriety of the High Court's order under Section 389 CrPC, noting that factual or evidentiary disputes concerning proof of age and the trial court’s findings were matters for the High Court on appeal under Section 374 CrPC. The bench examined precedents including K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan, Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab, Afjal Ansari v. State of U.P., and Angana v. State of Rajasthan to frame the contours of the appellate court’s power to suspend sentences. Applying those principles, the Court found that the Trial Court’s finding that the victim was a minor remained the operative position until altered by the High Court, and that the nature of the offence and the conviction precluded suspension in the present facts. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s suspension order, directed immediate surrender of the accused, and clarified that if the High Court did not hear the appeal within eighteen months the accused would be at liberty to seek regular bail. Pending applications were closed.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2101 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.18017 of 2024) Case Title: LILABEN … APPELLANT(S) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Shahrukh Alam, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Ms. Swati Ghidiyal, Advocate for State of Gujarat; Mr. Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.2