AHMED ALI & ORS.versusSTATE OF TRIPURA

                     [2009] 9 S.C.R. 933


                     AHMED ALI & ORS.                            A
                              vs.
                    STATE OF TRIPURA
              (Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2003)

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

     Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 334 and 335 - Voluntarily
causing hurt/grievous hurt on provocation - Alteration of C
conviction of two accused from s.324 rlw. s.34 to s.334 rlw s.
34 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year -
Conviction of other two accused altered from s. 304 (Part II)
r/w s.34 to s.335 rlw s.34 and sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for two years - On appeal, held: Maximum D
sentence permissible uls. 334 is one month, thus sentence
uls. 334 reduced to one month - As regards other accused
convicted uls. 335, sentence reduced to three months - Fine .
with defaul~ stipulation maintained - Sentence/Sentencing.

    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 50 of 2003.

     From the Judgment & Order dated 2.8.2002 of the High
Court of Guwahati, Agartala Bench in Criminal Appeal No. 15
of 1997.

     Rajiv Mehta for the Appellant.

    Gopal Singh for the Respondent.

    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.
                             933
      934         SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.


A ·        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
8
      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 lnforma~ion Report was registered indicating the
C 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.

0      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
E 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. AU the four accused preferred an appeal before the High·
F 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
G 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
H default stipulation.
     AHMED ALI & ORS. v. STATE OF TRIPURA                    935
            [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

     8. The present appeal has been filed by Ahmed Ali, Suraj        A
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
                                                                     8
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.
                                                                     c
     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.
                                                                     D
     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           E
     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.
                                                                     F
    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 G
    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
                                                                     H
    936          SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 9 S.C.R.


A   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{ar as Mustafa Miah is concerned, the sentence is
    reduced to three months.
8
        14. However, the fine amount with default stipulation in
    respect of the appellants is maintained.

          15. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
c N.J.                                      Appeal partly allowed.