Knowledge That the Act Was Likely to Cause Death Is Enough for Section 304 Part-II IPC: Supreme Court

“S was a young man trying to bring peace—he paid with his life. Appellant struck him on the neck with full knowledge the injury was likely to cause death”: Supreme Court on upholding 8-year sentence under Section 304 Part-II IPC

In a firm affirmation of the principles of sentencing proportionality, the Supreme Court of India on 17 October 2025 dismissed an appeal seeking further reduction in sentence for culpable homicide committed by a 20-year-old man. While upholding the conviction of Kotresh alias Kotrapa under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, the Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih ruled that the High Court’s sentence of 8 years rigorous imprisonment was proportionate and required no further leniency.

The Court underscored that the deceased S was an innocent intervenor, a peacekeeper who attempted to quell a family dispute, and was struck fatally on the neck with an axe by the appellant without any provocation. The judges observed:

“An innocent person was done to death by the appellant without there being any provocation… the blow was not by mistake or accident.”

“Sentence Must Reflect Social Conscience and Victim’s Rights”: Apex Court Reiterates Limits of Judicial Sympathy

The appeal arose from a 1990 incident in Karnataka, where tensions between two families—following an alleged rape—escalated into violence. The appellant, enraged by the refusal of a marriage alliance between his cousin (the rape survivor) and the accused, attacked the victim S, who had merely intervened to stop the scuffle.

Initially convicted by the Sessions Court and sentenced to 10 years RI under Section 304 Part-II IPC, the appellant’s sentence was reduced by the High Court to 8 years, while upholding the conviction. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Supreme Court solely on the question of further sentence reduction, arguing his young age (20), absence of premeditation, and emotional state.

Rejecting the plea, the Court reasoned:

“While the appellant might have been deprived of the power of self-control by the rape committed upon his cousin, there was no sudden provocation at the place of occurrence which necessitated him to act in the manner he did and cause the death of S.”

“Judicial Discretion Must Not Yield to Fancy or Notion”: Court Cautions Against Disproportionate Leniency

Quoting from its earlier judgment in Raj Bala v. State of Haryana, the Court reminded sentencing courts of their duty to respond to the collective conscience of society and to balance judicial discretion with the expectations of justice:

“The discretion cannot be allowed to yield to fancy or notion. A Judge has to keep in mind the paramount concept of rule of law and the conscience of the collective and balance it with the principle of proportionality.”

It further warned:

“Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system… and society could not long endure under such serious threats.”
(Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat)

The Bench emphasized that the victim’s perspective cannot be ignored, especially when the deceased, S, aged 23, was an entirely uninvolved and unarmed individual, whose only “mistake” was attempting to de-escalate the situation.

“Knowledge That the Act Was Likely to Cause Death Is Enough for Section 304 Part-II”: Intent vs. Consequence Analysed

Delving into the elements of culpable homicide, the Court drew upon Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State of A.P., reiterating the tests to distinguish murder (Section 302 IPC) from culpable homicide (Section 304 Part-I or II IPC).

It concluded that although the case did not merit a conviction under Section 302 IPC—since neither the State nor complainant appealed for enhancement—the act squarely attracted Section 304 Part-II, as the appellant had knowledge that a blow on the neck with an axe was likely to cause death.

“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.”

This, the Court held, was sufficient to justify the 8-year term already imposed.

No Further Reduction—But Liberty Granted to Seek Remission Under Karnataka Policy

In rejecting the plea for sentence reduction, the Court made it clear that the appellant could explore statutory avenues for premature release, such as remission under State policy, provided eligibility criteria are met.

“The appellant shall be entitled to seek premature release in terms of the remission policy of the State of Karnataka, provided he acquires eligibility thereunder.”

This balance between judicial finality and statutory executive discretion was highlighted by the Court as a safeguard against rigidity, while refusing to exercise constitutional powers to reduce sentence further.

“Sentencing Must Reflect the Gravity of Offence—Mercy Cannot Eclipse Justice”: Supreme Court Affirms Limits of Compassion in Criminal Law

Summing up its reasoning, the Court affirmed that:

“We have taken into account that the appellant was about 20 years of age at the time of the incident… Nevertheless, the courts are obligated to adopt a balanced and principled approach in matters of sentencing. Undue leniency can cause public confidence in the justice system to plummet.”

With that, the appeal was dismissed and the sentence upheld.

Date of Decision: 17 October 2025