Supreme Court Upholds 8-Year Sentence for Killing Rape Accused’s ‘Innocent’ Brother

Court says further leniency would erode public confidence; notes victim tried to make peace between feuding families

Update: 2025-10-22 14:13 GMT

The Supreme Court upholds an eight-year sentence for the man convicted of culpable homicide

The Supreme Court recently refused to reduce the sentence of a Karnataka man convicted of killing the brother of a rape accused during a family confrontation. Holding that “Undue leniency can cause public confidence in the justice system to plummet,” the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih observed that the deceased, a 23-year-old who had tried to defuse the altercation, was an innocent victim and not a provocateur.

Court upheld the eight-year rigorous imprisonment awarded to Kotresh alias Kotrapa, noting that the act could not be justified under the “heat of passion” or “sudden provocation” exceptions. The bench said the Karnataka High Court had already shown leniency by reducing the sentence from ten to eight years, and any further reduction would “erode public faith in the rule of law".

Case background

The appellant’s cousin (‘C’) was allegedly raped by one V, the elder brother of the deceased ‘S’. The incident had led to the birth of a child. While V was in custody facing trial for rape, C’s family including the appellant, demanded that V marry her to “restore honour.” When negotiations failed, tempers flared, and the following day the appellant’s family went to confront V’s relatives again. 

During the ensuing scuffle, S tried to intervene and calm both sides. However, in a sudden burst of rage, Kotresh picked up an axe from a nearby house and struck S on the neck. The blow proved fatal. S, the court noted, had no role in the earlier incident or in provoking the assault.

The sessions court, in January 2020, convicted Kotresh for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment. The Karnataka High Court, while maintaining the conviction, reduced the term to eight years in February 2024. Unhappy even with that relief, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, limiting his challenge to the sentence.

Before the top court, senior advocate Rahul Kaushik, appearing for the appellant, argued that Kotresh had acted without premeditation and was overcome by emotion because the accused’s family had refused to marry V to C. He urged that the appellant was only 20 at the time, had already spent over two years behind bars, and should be released considering his youth and lack of criminal intent. He cited Deo Nath Rai v. State of Bihar (2018), where a similar offence attracted only five years’ imprisonment.

However, senior advocate Ashok Gaur, appointed amicus curiae along with advocate Shakshi Singh, opposed the plea, arguing that the killing was deliberate and not a spur-of-the-moment act. He pointed out that the accused knew where the axe was kept and retrieved it specifically to attack S. “The victim (S) tried to intervene to ensure that there was no loss of life or limb of anyone engaged in the altercation and scuffle but unfortunately ended giving up his life without in any manner being responsible for what had happened in the past,” he said, urging the court not to show misplaced sympathy.

Justice Datta, writing for the bench, noted that Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC which applies to acts committed under sudden provocation was inapplicable since there was no immediate cause that deprived the appellant of self-control. “Neither S was instrumental in provoking the appellant, nor was the blow struck by mistake or accident,” the court observed.

The bench emphasised that courts must balance compassion with proportionality. Quoting from Raj Bala v. State of Haryana (2016) and Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat (2006), it said sentencing must reflect “the conscience of society” and that undue leniency can shake public faith in the criminal justice system. “A court, while imposing sentence, has a duty to respond to the collective cry of society,” the judgment read.

While acknowledging that the appellant was young and may have acted out of exasperation, court concluded that reducing the sentence further would be contrary to the principle of proportional punishment. “The High Court has already been indulgent by reducing the sentence to eight years. We find no reason to interfere,” the bench said, dismissing the appeal.

However, court clarified that Kotresh would remain eligible to seek premature release under Karnataka’s remission policy once he meets the eligibility criteria. It also recorded its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the amici curiae in the matter.

Case Title: Kotresh @ Kotrappa Vs State of Karnataka And Anr

Judgment Date: October 17, 2025

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih

Tags:    

Similar News