Legal Review and Analysis of Kotresh @ Kotrappa vs State of Karnataka & Anr 2025 INSC 1250

1. Heading of the Judgment

Kotresh @ Kotrappa vs State of Karnataka & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1250
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
Date: October 17, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment primarily discusses and interprets the following legal provisions:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
  Section 304 Part-II: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years. This section applies when the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without the intention to cause death or such intention as falls under the exceptions to Section 300.
  Section 302: Murder.
  Section 300, Exception 1: Provides that culpable homicide is not murder if the act is committed under grave and sudden provocation.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
  Section 374(2): Provides the right of appeal to the High Court against an order of conviction by a Sessions Court.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties: The Appellant, Kotresh @ Kotrappa, was convicted for the homicide of 'S'. The Respondents are the State of Karnataka and the complainant (the victim's father).

• Procedural History:
  Sessions Court: Convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.
  High Court of Karnataka: Upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment.
  Supreme Court: The appellant filed an appeal, limited to the question of sentence, seeking a further reduction.

• Core Prayer in Supreme Court: The appellant's counsel pleaded for the sentence to be reduced to the period already undergone (approximately two and a half years), arguing it was an act without premeditation committed by a young man who had lost self-control.

4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of 8 years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the High Court for an offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC was excessive and warranted further reduction.

A. The Factual Matrix and Nature of the Crime

The incident stemmed from a family dispute. The appellant's cousin ('C') was allegedly raped by the victim S's elder brother ('V'), resulting in the birth of a child. A day before the incident, negotiations for a marriage between C and V had failed. On the day of the crime, the appellant and his family members went to V's residence, leading to an altercation and scuffle. The deceased 'S', who was V's younger brother, intervened as a peacemaker. At this point, the appellant went to a nearby house, picked up an axe, and delivered a single blow to S's neck, which proved fatal.

B. The Supreme Court's Reasoning and Address of Core Issues

The Court engaged in a detailed analysis, balancing the mitigating factors presented by the appellant against the aggravating circumstances and the principles of sentencing.

i. Rejection of Mitigating Factors and "Heat of the Moment" Plea

The Court was not convinced by the argument that the appellant, being 20 years old, acted in a fit of rage without premeditation. It noted key evidence:

• The appellant specifically went to a nearby house to fetch the axe, indicating a deliberate act.

• The victim 'S' was an "innocent intervenor" trying to pacify the situation and was in no way responsible for the background dispute. The Court emphasized that "an innocent person was done to death by the appellant without there being any provocation."

• It observed that while the appellant may have had a grievance against V, there was no "sudden provocation" at the scene that justified the lethal attack on S. The Court even hinted that the case might have warranted a conviction under Section 302 (murder), but since the State had not appealed the conviction under Section 304 Part-II, it did not delve deeper into this aspect.

ii. Application of Sentencing Jurisprudence

The Court relied heavily on established precedents to outline the principles governing sentencing. It cited Raj Bala v. State of Haryana (2016) 1 SCC 463, which held that a court must respond to the "collective cry of the society" and that discretion in sentencing cannot be exercised based on "fancy or notion." The sentence must balance the principle of proportionality with the agony of the victim's family.

Further, citing Shailesh Jasvanthhai v. State of Gujarat (2006) 2 SCC 359, the Court reiterated that the object of law is the "protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity." It emphasized that "undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law." The nature of the weapon, the part of the body targeted (the neck), and the force employed are all relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

iii. Distinguishing Precedent on Sentence Reduction

The appellant's reliance on Deo Nath Rai v. State of Bihar (2018) 13 SCC 87 (where a 5-year sentence was imposed for an offence under Section 304 Part-II) was found to be misplaced. The Supreme Court clarified that the decision in Deo Nath Rai was based on its own unique facts and did not lay down a general principle that would compel a reduction of sentence in the present case.

5. Final Outcome

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It upheld the sentence of 8 years of rigorous imprisonment imposed by the High Court, finding it to be a just and appropriate sentence that balanced the circumstances of the case with the need for deterrence and societal justice.

The Court, however, added a clarificatory direction: "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 means the appellant can apply for early release as per the state's rules and policies on remission, once he becomes eligible.

6. Multiple Choice Questions Based on the Judgment

1. In Kotresh @ Kotrappa vs State of Karnataka (2025 INSC 1250), the Supreme Court primarily addressed the issue of?
a) The validity of the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
b) The reduction of the sentence awarded for an offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC.
c) The applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
d) The legality of the arrest of the appellant.

2. The Supreme Court refused to further reduce the sentence primarily because?
a) The appellant had a prior criminal record.
b) The appellant used a firearm in committing the crime.
c) The victim was an innocent peacemaker and the act demonstrated knowledge that it was likely to cause death.
d) The appellant had not spent any time in prison.