The Supreme Court partially allowed the criminal appeal filed by Kotresh @ Kotrappa against the State of Karnataka and another respondent -- The appellant was convicted for the murder of 'S' under Section 304 Part-II, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment by the Sessions Court, which was reduced to 8 years by the High Court -- The Supreme Court upheld the conviction but further reduced the sentence to the period already served, considering the appellant's youth, provocation from a family dispute involving alleged rape and marriage issues, and the absence of premeditation -- The Court emphasized that the appellant, aged 20 at the time, acted in the heat of passion during a scuffle, and had already served two and a half years in prison -- The decision was based on legal principles from precedents and a balanced assessment of sentencing factors under criminal law
Criminal Law-- Code of criminal Procedure, 1973-- Section 374(2)-- Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 302 and 304-II-- Cousin of the appellant was raped by elder brother of "S"--Complaint of rape was filed-- Insistence for marriage-- Altercation-- Scuffle-- Appellant assaulted with an axe and stuck a blow on the neck of "S"-- Victim "S" succumbed to injuries-- Murder-- Trial-- Session court convicted appellant U/s 304-II of IPC-- Culpable homicide not amounting to murder-- Sentence of 10 years imposed by Session court- Aggrieved- Challenged before High court in an appeal-- High court allowed appeal in part and reduced sentence from 10 years to 8 years-- Dissatisfaction on the part of appellant-accused- Challenged before Supreme court-- Intention- Act of premeditation-- Case Pulicherla Nagaraju (Supra) referred-- Reason to bear a grudge by appellant-- An open fight followed the scuffle-- No act of sudden provocation-- Quantum of sentence-- Cases referred-- Determination of appropriate sentence-- Principles of proportion between crime and punishment-- No undue leniency required- No further reduction of sentence- Appeal was dismissed
Para-- 15, 22, 25, 27, 28
The Supreme Court of India, in Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 16833 of 2024], heard an appeal against the judgment and order dated 8th February, 2024 of the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench -- The appellant was convicted under Section 304 Part-II, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment by the Sessions Court, which was reduced to 8 years by the High Court -- The Supreme Court, while upholding the conviction, further reduced the sentence to the period already served, considering the appellant's age of 20 years at the time of the incident, provocation due to family dispute, and lack of premeditation -- The Court referred to precedents including Deo Nath Rai v. State of Bihar (2018) 13 SCC 87 and Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. (2006) 11 SCC 444 for sentencing principles and determination of intention -- Key legal principles applied included the distinction between Sections 302 and 304 IPC, factors for sentencing mitigation, and the role of amicus curiae in criminal appeals
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal -- The conviction under Section 304 Part-II, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was upheld -- The sentence was reduced from 8 years rigorous imprisonment to the period already served by the appellant, considering his youth, provocation, and absence of premeditation
Citation: 2025 LawText (SC) (10) 4
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 16833 of 2024]
Date of Decision: 2025-10-17
Case Title: The Issue of sentence reduction for the appellant convicted under Section 304 Part-II, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), considering factors such as youth, provocation, and period of imprisonment already served
Before Judge: DIPANKAR DATTA J. , AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH J.
Equivalent Citations: 2025 INSC 1250
Advocate(s): Rahul Kaushik, Ashok Gaur, Shakshi Singh, Learned senior counsel
Appellant: Kotresh @ Kotrappa
Respondent: State of Karnataka and Anr.
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
Remedy Sought: The appellant sought reduction of sentence from 8 years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the High Court to the period already served or a suitable reduction
Filing Reason: Dissatisfaction with the High Court's judgment dated 8th February, 2024 which maintained conviction but reduced sentence to 8 years, with the appellant arguing for further sentence reduction based on youth and provocation
Previous Decisions: Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment on 21st January, 2020 -- High Court upheld conviction but reduced sentence to 8 years on 8th February, 2024
Issues: Whether the sentence of 8 years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part-II IPC should be reduced considering the appellant's age, provocation, and period already served? Whether the act constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide under Section 304 Part-II IPC based on intention and knowledge?
Submissions/Arguments: Appellant's counsel argued for sentence reduction due to appellant's age of 20 years, lack of premeditation, provocation from family dispute, and period of two and a half years already served -- Cited Deo Nath Rai v. State of Bihar for precedent on 5-year sentence Respondent's counsel opposed reduction, contending the act was premeditated with intention and knowledge, and argued the case should have been under Section 302 IPC -- Cited Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P. on factors for determining intention
Ratio Decidendi: In sentencing for culpable homicide under Section 304 Part-II IPC, factors such as the accused's youth, provocation, lack of premeditation, and period of imprisonment already served should be considered for reduction -- The distinction between murder under Section 302 IPC and culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC hinges on intention and knowledge, which must be assessed based on circumstances like weapon use, force, and provocation -- The Court held that the appellant's act, committed in the heat of passion during a family dispute, did not warrant the full sentence imposed by the lower courts
Judgment Excerpts: The appellant, who was barely 20 years old on the date of the incident of crime, could not control his senses because the family members of V were not agreeable to his marriage with C and without any premeditation struck the fatal blow on S leading to his unfortunate death -- Para 10 Referring to a coordinate Bench decision of this Court in Deo Nath Rai v. State of Bihar, Mr. Kaushik submits that for a similar offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II, IPC, 5 (five) years rigorous imprisonment was imposed by this Court -- Para 11 The intention to cause death can be gathered generally from a combination of a few or several of the following, among other, circumstances: nature of the weapon used; whether the weapon was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot; whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the body -- Para 15
Procedural History: The appellant was tried and convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC by Sessions Court on 18th January, 2020, with sentence on 21st January, 2020 -- Appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC to High Court resulted in conviction upheld but sentence reduced to 8 years on 8th February, 2024 -- Supreme Court granted leave, issued limited notice on sentence on 4th March, 2025, appointed amicus curiae on 9th September, 2025, and heard arguments before delivering judgment
