LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
โš–๏ธ Ask the AI about your situation:๐Ÿš— Car Accident๐Ÿ’ผ Work / Job๐Ÿ  Housing / Eviction๐Ÿ‘ช Family / Divorce๐Ÿ“‹ Contract Dispute๐Ÿ’ฐ Money Owed

AHMED ALI & ORS. versus STATE OF TRIPURA

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 933 · Decided: 29-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 9 S.C.R. 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.] 
A 
B 
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 ยท 
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 
8 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 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 Highยท 
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. 
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 : 
c 
D 
"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 
ยท 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. 
335. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation.-
Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt on grave and 
sudden pr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.