SRINATH PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second petition for suspension of execution of sentence pending appeal. Earlier petition in Cri. M.P. No. 312 of 2004 was dismissed on 6-2-2004. The petitioner/A1 along with his parents were charged for offences under Sections 498-A and 308, I.P.C. The trial Court by Judgment dated 19-1-2004, acquitted A2 and A3 of all the charges but found A1 guilty of both the charges. Al was sentenced to 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs for the offence under Section 498-A.

(2.) When the appellant filed a petition for suspension of sentence earlier, P.W. 1 the father-in-law of the appellant filed an intervening petition in Cri. M.P. No. 505 of 2004. Order was passed after hearing both the appellant and the intervener. Even in this petition, the intervener wants to intervene on the strength of the earlier petition. No fresh petition filed by the intervener.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the intervener has no right to intervene in this application. This is an application for suspension of the execution of sentence; it is only a matter between the Court and the petitioner/appellant, if at all only the prosecution can object and not P.W, 1. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that a private person can intervene in a criminal case only under Section 301, Cr.P.C. That provision is applicable only during the trial before the Court. Even during trial, a private person can only assist the prosecution, at the most such person can submit written arguments. Except during a trial, a private person cannot intervene. Therefore, in appeal, the private person has no locus standi to intervene on any ground.