By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
Taking jurisprudence a step further, the apex court has upheld that an individual can be held guilty of culpable homicide even if the actual victim was not the intended target. This decision underscores the principle that criminal liability extends beyond the intended victim when the accused commits an act knowing it is likely to cause death.
The case in question pertains to an incident in Hydel Colony, Kichha, Nainital. According to the prosecution, Ashok Saxena and his co-accused, Yashpal Singh (now deceased), had an altercation with the complainant’s family. The dispute escalated when Saxena and Singh forcibly entered the house of Hetram, the complainant, armed with a knife and a hockey stick. In the ensuing scuffle, the accused stabbed Hetram’s wife, causing her death. The prosecution argued that even though Saxena did not intend to kill the deceased, his actions constituted culpable homicide amounting to murder.
While the trial court (Additional Sessions Judge II, Nainital) acquitted the accused, citing insufficient evidence, the Uttarakhand High Court overturned this verdict, convicting him under Section 302 IPC (murder) and sentencing him to life imprisonment. Saxena then approached the Supreme Court, where the key question was whether his actions constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC.
Doctrine Of Transferred Malice Applied
A bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, delivered the judgment on January 30, 2025, invoking Section 301 IPC, which states: “If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause.”
This doctrine, known as “transfer of malice” or “transmigration of motive,” establishes that a person who intends to kill one individual, but mistakenly kills another is still held liable as if the intended victim had died.
Culpable Homicide Vs Murder: Legal Distinctions
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 (BNS, 2023) divides culpable homicide into two categories:
- Culpable homicide (Section 100 BNS, previously Section 299 IPC).
- Culpable homicide amounting to murder (Section 101 BNS, previously Section 300 IPC).
While these may appear similar, the distinction lies in the degree of mens rea (guilty intent). The fundamental elements required for a conviction include:
1. Mens rea—the presence of a guilty mind or intention.
2. Actus reus—the actual act of causing death.
3. Causality—a direct link between the act and the intended harm.
In this case, the key question was whether Saxena’s act, which resulted in the unintended death of the complainant’s wife, still amounted to murder. The Court ruled that intent to kill is not a necessary pre-requisite under Section 301 IPC—what matters is the accused’s awareness that their actions could cause death.
Court Ruling: Exception To Murder, Sentence Reduced
While reaffirming that an accused cannot escape liability merely because the deceased was not the intended victim, the Supreme Court also considered mitigating factors. The Court ruled that Saxena’s case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which allows for a reduction in punishment when a homicide occurs due to a sudden fight or provocation.
Taking into account Saxena’s advanced age (74 years) and the 33-year lapse since the incident, the Court modified his conviction from Section 302 (murder) to Section 304-I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). His sentence was reduced to the period already undergone—nearly six years in custody.
Precedents And The Evolution Of Transferred Malice
The Supreme Court cited key precedents, including:
- Gyanendra Kumar vs State of UP
- Jagpal Singh vs State of Punjab
Both cases reaffirmed that an accused cannot evade culpability simply because the actual victim was unintended. The Court reiterated that the doctrine of transferred malice applies when an individual engages in an act that is inherently dangerous, regardless of the final victim.
The Doctrine’s Significance In Criminal Jurisprudence
The doctrine of transferred malice continues to be an essential principle in criminal law, ensuring accountability even in cases of mistaken victim identity. While legal scholars debate its complexities, its role in attributing intent and reinforcing justice remains undisputed.
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi