Undue Leniency Can Cause Public Confidence In Justice System To Plummet: Supreme Court Upholds Eight-Year Sentence For Culpable Homicide
The Apex Court upheld an eight-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded to a man convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, cautioning that undue leniency in sentencing can erode public confidence in the justice system.
Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court refused to reduce the sentence of a man convicted of killing a 23-year-old during an altercation, emphasising that judicial discretion in sentencing must be exercised with balance and proportionality.
The appeal arose from a conviction of the appellant, who had struck the deceased with an axe during an altercation between two families.
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, while upholding the eight-year rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Karnataka High Court, which had earlier reduced the trial court’s ten-year sentence, remarked that “courts are obligated to adopt a balanced and principled approach in matters of sentencing”, explaining that “undue leniency can cause public confidence in the justice system to plummet, while excessive severity may lead to injustice.”
Senior Advocate Rahul Kaushik represented the petitioner, while Aman Panwar, A.A.G., appeared for the respondents.
Background
The prosecution's case revealed that the altercation stemmed from a rape allegation against the deceased’s brother, who was facing trial. Efforts by both families to resolve the dispute through marriage discussions had failed. The next day, tempers flared, leading to a scuffle during which the appellant struck the deceased, who was attempting to pacify both sides, with an axe, killing him instantly.
While the defence argued that the act was impulsive and unpremeditated, the prosecution maintained that the assault was deliberate and that the deceased, being uninvolved, had been unjustly killed.
The Trial Court convicted the appellant of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment. The Karnataka High Court later upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to eight years.
The appellant thereafter approached the Supreme Court seeking further reduction, citing youth and lack of premeditation.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court noted that although the appellant had reason to feel aggrieved over the situation involving his cousin, there was no provocation from the deceased, who was merely trying to stop the fight. The Court held that the appellant knowingly inflicted a fatal blow and could not claim the benefit of sudden provocation.
The Bench stated that exception 1 to Section 300, IPC, which provides that culpable homicide is not murder if the offender is deprived of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, was certainly not applicable. However, since neither the State nor the complainant appealed against the judgment of conviction recorded by the sessions court, the Bench held that “we, therefore, do not see reason to dilate on this aspect any further, but would bear this in mind while considering the prayer”.
While rejecting the plea for a reduced sentence, the Supreme Court cited Raj Bala v. State of Haryana (2016) and, reiterating that “a court, while imposing sentence, has a duty to respond to the collective cry of the society.”
The Court also quoted its previous judgment in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat (2006) in which it was held that “the sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be.”
In the matter at hand, the Bench noted that while the appellant’s age and lack of prior criminal record could be considered mitigating factors, they did not justify a further reduction in sentence, given that “an innocent person was done to death by the appellant without there being any provocation”.
Conclusion
Holding that the Karnataka High Court had already “been indulgent towards the appellant and granted relief to him by reducing the term sentence”, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
The Court, however, clarified that the appellant would remain eligible to seek premature release under Karnataka’s remission policy upon fulfilling the required conditions.
Cause Title: Kotresh @ Kotrappa v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1250)
Appearances
Appellant: Senior Advocate Rahul Kaushik, with Advocates Anil C Nishani, Meenesh Dubey and others.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Ashok Gaur & Advocate Shakshi Singh (Amici Curiae), Aman Panwar, A.A.G., and others.