2004 (4) TMI 662 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Suspension of execution of sentence pending appeal.
2. Right of a private person to intervene in criminal proceedings at the appellate stage.
3. Factors to consider while suspending the sentence and granting bail pending appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Suspension of execution of sentence pending appeal:
The appellant, convicted under Sections 498-A and 308 IPC and sentenced to 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs, filed a second petition for suspension of execution of sentence pending appeal. The court noted that the Supreme Court in *Kiran Kumar v. State of M.P.* held that the normal rule is to suspend the sentence pending appeal unless exceptional reasons exist. The court found no exceptional reasons to deny suspension and noted that the appellant's immediate release would not adversely affect society. Thus, the execution of the sentence was suspended pending appeal.

2. Right of a private person to intervene in criminal proceedings at the appellate stage:
The intervener, P.W. 1, sought to intervene in the suspension of execution of sentence. The appellant's counsel argued that a private person has no right to intervene at the appellate stage, citing Section 301 Cr.P.C., which allows a private person to assist the prosecution only during the trial. The court agreed, stating that the intervener has no right of audience at the appellate stage except to assist the prosecution and submit written arguments during the trial. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in *M/s. J.K. International v. State Government of NCT of Delhi* and other relevant case law, concluding that the intervener cannot be heard in the petition for suspension of execution of sentence.

3. Factors to consider while suspending the sentence and granting bail pending appeal:
The court referred to a Full Bench decision in *Santhanapandi v. State*, which outlined factors to consider while suspending a sentence and granting bail, such as the gravity of the offense, motive, intention, mens rea, conduct of the accused, and the effect of the release on society. The court found no evidence of mens rea or intention by the appellant to drive his wife to suicide. The court also considered the appellant's personal circumstances, including his need to care for his children studying in the USA. Given the likelihood of sentence reduction on appeal, the court found no impediment to suspending the sentence pending appeal.

Conclusion:
The court ordered the suspension of the sentence and granted bail to the appellant, requiring him to execute a bond for Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, and to appear before the Mahalir Needhi Mandram, Chennai, once every three months, and to inform the court when traveling abroad.