Apex Court Upholds Eight‑Year Sentence for Axe Killing, Declines Further Reduction

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih heard an appeal against sentence arising out of a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II, IPC, where the High Court of Karnataka had reduced the original ten‑year term to eight years; the appellant sought further reduction to the period already served. The appeal was confined to the question of sentence.

The Court summarised that the High Court's reduction of sentence did not call for interference and dismissed the appeal. The judges recorded that the deceased S was an innocent intervenor who had attempted to restore peace, and that the appellant knowingly inflicted a neck injury with an axe likely to cause death. The Court relied on established sentencing principles and precedent and observed that mercy must be balanced with the "conscience of the collective." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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 judgment also invoked the caution that "The discretion cannot be allowed to yield to fancy or notion" and reiterated that "The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several ... circumstances," including the nature of the weapon and whether it was fetched or carried.

Background

The dispute arose after C — a first cousin of the appellant — was allegedly raped by V and gave birth to a child while V faced trial under Section 376, IPC. Family members attempted to secure marriage between C and V; when negotiations failed, relatives of both sides confronted each other. During a scuffle at V's residence, S, the younger brother of V and an uninvolved bystander, intervened to bring about peace. The appellant went to a nearby house, procured an axe and struck S on the neck; S later died of the injury.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II, IPC and sentenced him to ten years rigorous imprisonment on 21 January 2020. The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, by its order dated 8 February 2024 maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence to eight years. The appellant, aged about 20 at the time of the incident, challenged only the sentence before this Court, seeking reduction to the period already served and relying on precedent including Deo Nath Rai v. State of Bihar.

At the Supreme Court hearing counsel for the appellant urged that the act sprang from loss of self‑control and youth, and emphasised time already spent in custody; he cited decisions where lesser terms were imposed for comparable offences. The State and the amici curiae opposed interference, pointing to eyewitness evidence that the accused faction was armed, that the axe was fetched from a specific spot and that the blow was aimed at a vital part — factors pointing to knowledge of the likely fatal consequence. The Court examined earlier authorities on sentencing, including Raj Bala and Shailesh Jasvantbhai, and applied the principle that sentencing must balance proportionality, deterrence and societal expectation.

Having considered the factual matrix, the mode of commission and the sentencing precedents, the Court concluded that the High Court's reduction to eight years was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed. The Court noted that the appellant remained eligible to apply for premature release in terms of the remission policy of the State of Karnataka when he acquired eligibility.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1250 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 16833 of 2024) Case Title: Kotresh @ Kotrappa v. State of Karnataka and Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Senior Advocate For the Respondent(s): State of Karnataka — counsel (name not specified); Mr. Ashok Gaur, Senior Advocate (appointed as amicus curiae); Ms. Shakshi Singh, Advocate (appointed as amicus curiae)