2009(9) SCR 933

AHMED ALI & ORS. vs.

STATE OF TRIPURA (Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2003)

APRIL 29, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the  judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Gauhati,  

Agartala Bench dated 02nd August 2002.

2. The factual scenario is to be noted in brief in view of the  

legal issues involved.

3. The three appellants, viz., Ahmed Ali, Suraj Ali and Mustafa  

Miah along with another accused, viz.,  Mamud Ali faced trial for  

alleged  commission  of  offence  punishable  under  Section  

302/324/323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860  

(in short, 'IPC').  

4. The occurrence took place on 14th February 1992. The First  

Information  Report  was  registered  indicating  the  commission  of  

offences punishable under Section 325/326 read with Section 34,  

IPC. On the death of Nural Islam (hereinafter referred to as 'the  

deceased') Section 302, IPC was added.  

5. The Trial Court,  after considering the evidence on record,  

came to hold that the accused Mamud Ali and Mustafa Miah were  

to be convicted in terms of Section 304 Part II read with Section  

34,  IPC  while  accused  Ahmed  Ali  and  Suraj  Ali  were  to  be

convicted  in  terms  of  Section  324  read  with  Section  34,  IPC.  

Mamud Ali and Mustafa Miah were sentenced to undergo rigorous  

imprisonment for five years and accused Ahmed Ali and Suraj Ali  

were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.

6.  All  the four accused preferred an appeal before the High  

Court.

7.  By  the  impugned  judgment,  the  High  Court  altered  the  

conviction of  Ahmed Ali  and Suraj  Ali  to  Section 334 read with  

Section 34, IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous  

imprisonment  for  one  year  with  a  fine  of  Rs.500/-  with  default  

stipulation. Similarly, in respect of Mamud Ali and Mustafa Miah,  

the conviction was altered to Section 335 read with Section 34,  

IPC and each was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment  

for two years and a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

8. The present appeal has been filed by Ahmed Ali, Suraj Ali  

and Mustafa Miah.

9. It is submitted that the maximum sentence permissible for  

an offence under Section 334, IPC is one month and, therefore,  

the High Court could not have imposed a sentence of one year so  

far as the accused Ahmed Ali and Suraj Ali are concerned. So far  

as accused Mustafa Miah is concerned, it is submitted that he was  

of  tender  age  at  the  time  of  occurrence  and  the  maximum  

sentence permissible relatable to Section 335, IPC is four years.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that  

though the sentence in terms of Section 334, IPC is prescribed but  

the  High  Court  has  applied  the  propositions  available  under  

Section 324, IPC.

11. Section 334 and 335 read as follows :  

"334.  Voluntarily  causing  hurt  on  provocation.-Whoever  

voluntarily causes hurt on grave and sudden provocation, if he  

neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause hurt to  

any person other than the person who gave the provocation,  

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a  

term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may  

extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

335.  Voluntarily  causing  grievous  hurt  on  provocation.-  

Whoever  voluntarily  causes  grievous  hurt  on  grave  and  

sudden provocation, if he neither intends nor knows himself to  

be likely to cause grievous hurt to any person other than the  

person  who  gave  the  provocation,  shall  be  punished  with  

imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend  

to four years, or with fine which may extend to two thousand  

rupees, or with both."

12.  A  bare  reading  of  the  above  provisions  shows  that  the  

maximum sentence  permissible  under  Section  334,  IPC  is  one  

month. Therefore, the sentence imposed on Ahmed Ali and Suraj  

Ali is reduced to one month.

13.  So  far  as  Mustafa  Miah  is  concerned,  the  sentence  is  

reduced to three months.

14. However, the fine amount with default stipulation in respect  

of the appellants is maintained.

15. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.