In this appeal against sentence under Section 304 Part-II IPC, the Supreme Court refused to reduce the 8-year rigorous imprisonment. The Court held that sentencing must balance proportionality and societal interests, and undue leniency undermines justice. The appellant’s act of using an axe on the victim’s neck demonstrated the requisite knowledge for the offense.
Facts Of The Case:
The case arose from a familial dispute involving allegations of rape. The appellant, Kotresh, was aggrieved as his cousin (‘C’) was allegedly raped by the elder brother (‘V’) of the eventual victim, ‘S’. This led to demands for marriage between C and V. A day before the incident, a meeting to resolve the issue failed. The next day, the appellant and other family members confronted V’s family, leading to a scuffle. S, the younger brother of V and an uninvolved bystander, intervened to pacify the parties. At this juncture, the appellant left the scene, fetched an axe from a nearby house, returned, and struck a fatal blow on S’s neck, causing his death. The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment by the trial court. The High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to 8 years. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court solely on the question of sentence reduction, arguing his youth and lack of premeditation. The Supreme Court, after examining the evidence, dismissed the appeal and upheld the 8-year sentence.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case began with the appellant’s conviction under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment by the relevant Sessions Court on January 21, 2020. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Court of Karnataka (Dharwad Bench). The High Court, vide its judgment dated February 8, 2024, maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to eight years. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition (Criminal). The Supreme Court granted leave and, after hearing arguments confined to the quantum of sentence, dismissed the appeal on October 17, 2025, thereby upholding the High Court’s sentence of eight years’ rigorous imprisonment.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Allows Business Expense Deduction for Firm in “Lull Period” Between Contracts
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made critical observations while upholding the sentence. It found no evidence of the “sudden provocation” required for Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC at the scene, noting the victim, S, was an innocent peacemaker. The Court emphasized that sentencing must balance proportionality, societal interest, and the victim’s rights, warning against undue leniency which erodes public confidence in justice. It held that using an axe to strike the neck demonstrated the appellant’s knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, fitting Section 304 Part-II IPC. While acknowledging the appellant’s youth and the background grievance, the Court concluded the reduced eight-year term by the High Court was appropriate and required no further interference.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment and order of the High Court. Consequently, the appellant’s conviction under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of eight years of rigorous imprisonment, as modified by the High Court, stands confirmed. The Court clarified that the appellant would be entitled to seek premature release under the applicable state remission policy, provided he meets the eligibility criteria. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Case Details:
Case Title: Kotresh @ Kotrappa vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 1250 Criminal Appeal No.: [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 16833 of 2024] Date of Judgement: October 17, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih