Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-004590-004590 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 39233/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Both judges concurred; no dissent |
| Precedent Value | Affirms existing precedent on discretionary sentencing under Section 304 Part II IPC |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal law |
| Questions of Law | Whether Supreme Court should disturb High Court’s reduction of sentence under Section 304 Part II IPC, given appellant’s age, circumstances, and absence of sudden provocation |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The fatal blow by the appellant lacked any sudden or grave provocation since the deceased had merely intervened to quell a scuffle; Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC was therefore inapplicable, rendering the offence properly classified under Section 304 Part II IPC. Sentencing is a matter of judicial discretion to be exercised on rational and proportional parameters, balancing societal interest and individual circumstances. Absent irrationality or misapplication of law, High Court’s reduction from 10 to 8 years calls for no interference. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The court applied the test for provocation and culpable homicide as per Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC; evaluated sentencing discretion under proportionality principles laid down in Raj Bala and Shailesh Jasvantbhai; held that factual distinctions in Deo Nath Rai did not mandate a different outcome |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
C’s cousin was allegedly raped by V and bore a child. Appellant’s family sought marriage between C and V, negotiations failed. During a second visit, an unrelated S intervened in a fight; appellant fetched an axe and struck S on the neck, causing death. Sessions Court convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC (10 years RI); High Court reduced it to 8 years RI. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Distinguishes | Deo Nath Rai v. State of Bihar (2018) (on its facts only) |
| Follows | Raj Bala v. State of Haryana (2016); Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat (2006) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that an intervening third party who merely tries to restore peace does not constitute “grave and sudden provocation” under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC.
- Reinforces that Exception 1 to Section 300 cannot be invoked when the deceased is innocent of provocation.
- Affirms that sentencing under Section 304 Part II IPC is a discretionary exercise guided by proportionality and societal interests, as per Raj Bala and Shailesh Jasvantbhai.
- Confirms that High Court’s reduction of sentence from 10 to 8 years, absent any misapplication of law, will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Provocation Test: Deceased S was an innocent intervenor; no sudden, grave provocation—Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC inapplicable.
- Classification: Offence correctly falls under Section 304 Part II IPC due to knowledge of likelihood of death from the axe blow.
- Sentencing Discretion: Guided by proportionality and public interest—parameters in Raj Bala and Shailesh Jasvantbhai, with reference to socio-cultural expectations.
- Precedent Application: Deo Nath Rai distinguished on facts; no broader rule requiring further reduction.
- Conclusion: High Court’s shrinkage of sentence to 8 years is rational and proportionate; no interference warranted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- Barely 20 years old at the time; lost self‐control due to family grievance over C’s rape.
- Act was sudden and unpremeditated; conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC appropriate.
- Sentence of 8 years RI should be reduced to time already served, citing Deo Nath Rai v. State of Bihar.
Respondent (State of Karnataka & Complainant)
- Appellant’s act was premeditated—he fetched the axe knowing its location.
- Deceased S was innocent and only intervened; requires deterrent sentencing.
- High Court balanced victim’s interests and societal expectations; 8 years RI is appropriate.
Factual Background
The appellant’s cousin C was allegedly raped by V, resulting in a child. Family negotiations to marry C to V failed. On their second confrontation at V’s residence, an unrelated S intervened in a violent scuffle. The appellant retrieved an axe from a nearby house and delivered a fatal blow to S’s neck, leading to S’s death. The Sessions Court convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC (10 years RI); the High Court reduced the term to 8 years RI; the appellant challenged only the sentence before the Supreme Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 300 IPC, Exception 1: Examined and held inapplicable due to absence of provocation by S.
- Section 304 Part II IPC: Upheld classification of culpable homicide not amounting to murder where knowledge of likely death exists.
- Sentencing Principles: Applied proportionality under principles laid down in Raj Bala (2016) and Shailesh Jasvantbhai (2006).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Both Justices Datta and Masih delivered the judgment jointly; no separate dissent or concurrence was recorded.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural guidelines or suo motu directions issued.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed