Doctrine of Transfer of Malice: Supreme Court on Unintended Killings

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a significant ruling interpreting Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the intended victim. The ruling emphasized the legal concept of transmigration of motive, which means that if an individual intends to kill a specific person but mistakenly kills another, the intention to kill is legally transferred to the actual victim. This principle, also known as the doctrine of transfer of malice, establishes that an offender can be held equally accountable for an unintended killing if it occurs in the execution of an intended act.

Court's Explanation of Section 301 IPC

• A Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan examined the provision in detail.
• The Court clarified that Section 301 embodies the doctrine of transfer of malice, explaining that:
  • “From the perusal of the provision of Section 301 of the IPC, it becomes manifest that Section 301 embodies what the English authors describe as the doctrine of transfer of malice or the transmigration of motive. Under the Section, 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.”
  • The Bench further added: “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.”

Case Background and Factual Analysis

• The case pertained to Ashok Saxena v. The State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1704-1705/2015).
• The appellant (Ashok Saxena) allegedly trespassed into the informant's house with a knife, intending to assault the informant.
• During the altercation, the informant’s wife intervened, and in the process, the appellant inflicted a knife wound on her abdomen, leading to her death.
• A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged, and the matter went to trial.

Judicial Proceedings and Verdicts

• Trial Court's Decision:
  • The Trial Court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
• High Court's Ruling:
  • The High Court overturned the acquittal and held the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC.
• Supreme Court's Interpretation and Final Ruling:
  • The Supreme Court analyzed the case in light of past precedents and applied Section 301 IPC.
  • The Court cited cases such as:
    • Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1991 SC 982)
    • Abdul Ise Suleman v. State of Gujarat (1995 CrLJ 464)
  • Based on these precedents, the Court reasoned:
    • “In view of the principles laid down by this Court in above quoted decisions, it is evident that even if it is held for the sake of argument that the appellant had no intention to cause death of the deceased, it will have to be held that doctrine of transfer of malice, as contemplated under Section 301, is applicable to the facts of the present case and that the appellant would be guilty under Section 302 of the IPC.”

Modification of Conviction and Sentencing

• The Supreme Court granted relief under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which states that culpable homicide does not amount to murder if committed without premeditation in a sudden fight.
• Consequently, the Court modified the conviction:
  • Instead of Section 302 IPC (murder), the accused was convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
  • Considering that the incident took place in 1992 and the appellant's advanced age, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

CASE TITLE: ASHOK SAXENA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ETC.

ATTACHMENT: