Court Upholds Eight-Year Sentence for Culpable Homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC

The appellant was prosecuted for causing the death of a young man who had intervened to stop a violent confrontation between two families. The background of the conflict arose from an earlier alleged sexual offence against a close relative of the appellant. The appellant, during the conflict, went to a neighbouring house, grabbed an axe, and smashed the neck of the refusing party, who later died from the wound. The Sessions Court charged the appellant with culpable homicide not amounting to murder according to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and awarded him ten years of hard imprisonment. The High Court, on appeal, upheld the conviction but lessened the sentence to eight years.

The appellant in the Supreme Court appeal asked for a further reduction of the sentence based on his youth (about 20 years at the time of the crime), no premeditation, and the emotional shock of the previous incident with his relative. The lawyer argued that the deed was done in a sudden, uncontrollable passion and that the appellant had already been in custody for a long time. The State and the complainant were against any softening and pointed out that the act was intentional, as the appellant had used an axe on a vital part of the body, which indicated that he was aware of the likely fatal consequence.

Issue Raised: Whether the eight-year sentence for culpable homicide under 302 IPC warranted further reduction on account of the appellant’s age and emotional state, and whether Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC was applicable.

Decision of the Court: The Supreme Court held that Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC was not applicable since there was no sudden provocation or loss of self-control at the scene of occurrence. The deceased was an innocent intervenor attempting to restore peace and had not provoked the appellant. The Court observed that the appellant’s act of striking a single blow with an axe on the neck of the victim demonstrated knowledge that it was likely to cause death.

The Bench, relying upon Raj Bala v. State of Haryana and Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat, declared that the sentencing must always be a compromise between the two extremes of leniency and deterrence and should, at the same time, mirror the prevailing attitudes and values of the society. The Court did not go beyond the limit of reasonableness as it found the High Court’s action to cut down the sentence from ten years to eight years reasonable. The appeal was dismissed, with liberty granted to the appellant to apply for premature release under the State’s remission policy as per eligibility.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below