SC Dismisses Plea By Man Against 8 Years' Jail For Causing Death Of 'Innocent' Brother Of Rape Accused

Last Updated:October 22, 2025, 22:16 IST

The court noted that neither the deceased was instrumental in provoking the appellant nor was the blow struck on his neck by the appellant by mistake or accident

The court said that it cannot keep aside the role of the deceased in the entire incident. File pic/PTI

The Supreme Court has dismissed a criminal appeal by a man against his conviction and sentence of eight years’ imprisonment awarded for culpable homicide not amounting to murder of a younger brother of another man who raped appellant’s cousin, begot a child, and declined to marry her.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih said the appellant was about 20 years of age at the time of the incident and that there may have been some exasperation in his mind; nevertheless, the courts are obligated to adopt a balanced and principled approach in matters of sentencing, as undue leniency can cause public confidence in the justice system to plummet, while excessive severity may lead to injustice.

Having examined the limited issue of the sentence, which was reduced by the Karnataka High Court from 10 to eight years’ imprisonment, the bench said, viewed through the prism of Section 304 Part-II, IPC, the appellant did have the knowledge that his act of striking the deceased with the axe on his neck is likely to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

“While the sessions court was justified in ordering imprisonment of the appellant for 10 (ten) years, the High Court has been indulgent towards the appellant and granted relief to him by reducing the term sentence by 8 (eight) years," the bench said.

According to the prosecution, the first cousin of the appellant had allegedly been raped by the deceased’s elder brother. The victim had given birth to a child too. While the elder brother was in custody and facing trial for the offence under Section 376, IPC, the family members of the appellant, including the father of the girl, insisted that marriage between the two must be solemnised.

The parties tried to find a solution a day prior to the incident of crime, which, however, proved abortive. On the fateful date, during an altercation, the appellant rushed to a nearby house, picked up an axe and struck a blow on the neck of the deceased, resulting in his death.

The appellant’s counsel contended he was barely 20 years old on the date of the incident and could not control his senses because the family members of the rape accused were not agreeable to his marriage. He may be let off with a reduced sentence, as he remained behind bars for two and a half years.

The counsel for the deceased said the deceased was all of 23 years old, and the appellant took away his life by brutally killing him. He sought to emphasise that the sessions court ought to have convicted the appellant for murder under Section 302 and not under Section 304 Part-II IPC, having regard to the overwhelming evidence on record that the appellant had both intention and knowledge.

He asserted it was a premeditated act of the appellant. He submitted that the deceased tried to intervene in the matter to ensure that there was no loss of life or limb of anyone engaged in the altercation and scuffle but unfortunately ended up giving up his life without in any manner being responsible for what had happened in the past.

The counsel said the appellant may apply, and if he is entitled in law for a premature release under the remission policy, the complainant can have no grievance in this respect.

Having heard the counsel, the bench said, no doubt, the appellant had a reason to bear a grudge against the rape accused. Being a close relative of the girl and faced with the situation in which she was placed, the appellant may not have been unjustified in nurturing a grievance and securing justice for her.

Suffice to note, the girl was also very young, and having given birth to a child, the appellant might have felt as a dutiful brother to take care of her interest, the court said.

However, the court said that it cannot keep aside the role of the deceased in the entire incident. There is no allegation levelled by any witness that the deceased was part of the altercation and the subsequent scuffle leading to fight; in fact, there is evidence on record that he had intervened in the course of the fight and was attempting to bring about peace between the two factions.

"An innocent person was done to death by the appellant without there being any provocation," the bench said.

The court opined that the appellant might have been deprived of the power of self-control by reason of the alleged act of rape committed by the elder brother of the deceased with the girl.

“But there was no such sudden provocation at the place of occurrence which necessitated him to act in the manner he did and cause the death," the bench said.

Indeed, the court noted, neither the deceased was instrumental in provoking the appellant nor was the blow struck on his neck by the appellant by mistake or accident.

“Once we have concluded that there was no provocation, Exception 1 was certainly not applicable. Be that as it may, neither the respondent no. 1—the State nor the respondent no. 2—the complainant appealed against the judgment of conviction recorded by the sessions court. We, therefore, do not see reason to dilate on this aspect any further," the bench said.

The court opined that the submission that the deceased was an intervenor who attempted to bring about peace and was himself a young man of 23 years cannot be brushed aside.

If other family members had not agreed to the proposal to have the marriage solemnised, no fault could at least be attributed to an innocent person, who had to suffer homicidal death caused by the appellant, the bench noted.

The SC finally held that the sentence imposed by the High Court does not call for any interference and that the appellant is not entitled to any relief.

The bench, however, clarified that the appellant would be entitled to seek premature release in terms of the remission policy of the State of Karnataka, provided he acquired eligibility thereunder.

Sanya Talwar

Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...Read More

Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...

Read More

News india SC Dismisses Plea By Man Against 8 Years' Jail For Causing Death Of 'Innocent' Brother Of Rape Accused

Read More