The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on October 17, 2025, has dismissed an appeal for the reduction of sentence in a culpable homicide case, affirming the eight-year rigorous imprisonment handed down by the Karnataka High Court. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not warrant interference, emphasizing that courts must adopt a “balanced and principled approach” in matters of sentencing to maintain public confidence in the justice system.
The appeal was filed by Kotresh @ Kotrappa, who was convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for causing the death of a man who was trying to mediate a dispute.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case originated from a family dispute. The appellant’s first cousin, ‘C’, had allegedly been raped by ‘V’, the elder brother of the deceased, ‘S’, and had given birth to a child. The appellant’s family insisted that ‘V’ marry ‘C’. Attempts to resolve the matter failed a day prior to the incident.
According to the judgment, on the day of the crime, the appellant and his family members went to the residence of ‘V’, leading to an altercation and scuffle. The deceased, ‘S’, described in the judgment as “a completely innocent person,” intervened to try and bring peace between the two factions. It was at this point that the appellant “rushed to a nearby house, picked up an axe and struck a blow on the neck of S.” The victim succumbed to the injury.
The Sessions Court, in its judgment on January 18, 2020, convicted the appellant not for murder, but for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, upheld the conviction in its order dated February 8, 2024, but reduced the sentence to eight years. The present appeal before the Supreme Court was filed against this High Court order, with the notice being limited to the question of the sentence.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Appearing for the appellant, Senior Counsel Mr. Rahul Kaushik argued for a reduction in sentence. He submitted that the appellant was barely 20 years old at the time of the incident and “could not control his senses” due to the circumstances surrounding his cousin. He contended that the act was not premeditated and that the appellant, having been incarcerated for two and a half years, should be let off with a sentence reduced to the period already served.
Opposing the appeal, Mr. Ashok Gaur, learned senior counsel appointed as amicus curiae for the complainant, argued vehemently against any reduction. He contended that the fatal attack was premeditated and not a one-off incident, referencing evidence of a prior altercation. He pointed out that the victim, ‘S’, was only 23 years old and was killed while trying to act as a peacemaker. Mr. Gaur submitted that the Sessions Court ought to have convicted the appellant for murder under Section 302, IPC, given the evidence. He cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. to outline the factors that help determine intent.
Mr. Gaur further argued that based on witness testimony, the appellant and co-accused had said they were “waiting for S” before the appellant went to a specific house to retrieve the axe, suggesting pre-planning. He also cited the case of Raj Bala v. State of Haryana, arguing that courts must strike a balance in sentencing, keeping in mind the interests of the victim and the “collective cry of the society.”
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court, after considering the evidence and arguments, concluded that no further leniency was warranted. The bench acknowledged the appellant’s potential “exasperation” but placed significant weight on the role of the victim. The Court observed, “An open fight had followed the scuffle during which the two opposing factions were giving blows and hits to each other. S happened to be the younger brother of V. There is no allegation levelled by any witness that S was part of the altercation and the subsequence scuffle leading to fight; in fact, there is evidence on record that S had intervened in course of the fight and was attempting to bring about peace between the two factions. An innocent person was done to death by the appellant without there being any provocation.”
The Court opined that the Sessions Court’s reasoning for invoking Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC (grave and sudden provocation) was questionable, stating, “Once we have concluded that there was no provocation, Exception 1 was certainly not applicable.”
While upholding the conviction under Section 304 Part-II, IPC, the bench affirmed that the appellant “did have the knowledge that his act of striking S with the axe on his neck is likely to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”
Citing its precedent in Raj Bala v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated the principles of sentencing: “A court, while imposing sentence, has a duty to respond to the collective cry of the society…… It is the duty of the court not to exercise the discretion in such a manner as a consequence of which the expectation inherent in patience, which is the ‘finest part of fortitude’ is destroyed.”
The bench also referred to Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat, which stated, “Proportion between crime and punishment is a goal respected in principle… Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law…”
Ultimately, the Court held that the High Court had already shown indulgence by reducing the sentence from ten to eight years. “Guided by the aforesaid decisions and after having considered the factual matrix, we are of the considered opinion that the sentence imposed by the High Court does not call for any interference and that the appellant is not entitled to any relief,” the bench concluded.
The appeal was accordingly dismissed. The Court, however, clarified that the appellant would be entitled to seek premature release under the remission policy of the State of Karnataka, provided he acquires eligibility.
