Vanshika Bhalla
The Supreme Court of India on January 30, 2025 clarified the doctrine of Transfer of Malice, or ‘transmigration of motive,’ under Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This provision deals with Culpable Homicide, when a person other than the intended target is killed.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan highlighted that “culpable homicide may be committed even if the offender causes the death of a person he did not intend, provided that the killing takes place while doing an act which the offender intended”.
The Court explained: “Section 301 embodies what the English authors describe as the doctrine of transfer of malice. If A intends to kill B, but kills C whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the intention to kill C is by law attributed to him.” Further, it stated, “If the killing takes place in the course of doing an act which a person intends or knows to be likely to cause death, it must be treated as if the real intention of the killer had been actually carried out.”
In the case of Ashok Saxena v. The State of Uttarakhand the appellant trespassed into the informant’s house with a knife intending to attack him. However, the informant’s wife intervened and was fatally stabbed. While the Trial Court acquitted the accused, the High Court convicted him for murder, leading to the Supreme Court appeal.
Citing precedents like Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1991 SC 982, the Court applied the doctrine of transfer of malice: “Even if it is held for the sake of argument that the appellant had no intention to cause death of the deceased, the doctrine of transfer of malice applies, making the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC.”
However, considering the crime occurred without premeditation during a sudden fight, the Court reduced the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC. Given the appellant’s advanced age and the passage of time since the 1992 incident, the sentence was reduced to time already served.
This ruling reinforces the legal principle that intention can be attributed even when the victim is unintended, highlighting the judiciary’s nuanced interpretation of criminal responsibility.
Case Name: Ashok Saxena v. The State of Uttarakhand etc.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos.1704-1705/2015
Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan
Click here to access the judgement.