If A Intends To Kill B But Mistakenly Kills C, Intention To Kill C Is Attributed To A : Supreme Court Explains 'Transmigration Of Motive'

The Supreme Court recently observed that Section 301 of the IPC (Culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person whose death was intended) reflects the doctrine of transfer of malice or the transmigration of motive. Explaining this provision, the Court said 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. Taking the help of an illustration, the Bench of Justices J.B.Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan elaborated: “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.” “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.,” the added. To provide a brief factual background, the present appellant had, with a knife, trespassed into the informant's house with the intention to assault him. However, the deceased (informant's wife) tried to intervene and inflicted a knife blow in the abdomen. She succumbed to her injuries. Consequently, the FIR was lodged. However, the Trial Court, while acquitting the accused, concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court overturned this verdict and held the accused guilty of murder. Against this background, the case reached the Supreme Court. At the outset, the Court cited several cases wherein the Court, after applying the doctrine of transfer of malice under Section 301, held the concerned accused liable under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC. The cases cited by the Court included Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1991 SC 982, Abdul Ise Suleman v. State of Gujarat reported in 1995 CrLJ 464. Building on this, the Court observed: “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.” However, the Court granted exception four of Section 300, as per which culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight. In view of this, the Court modified the impugned judgment and instead sentenced the accused under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC, culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Before parting, taking into consideration that the incident occurred in 1992 and the appellant's advanced age, the Court reduced the sentence to already undergone. Appearances: Appellant: Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik, Adv. Ms. Rhythm Bharadwaj, Adv. Ms. Suman Sharma, Adv. Ms. Niharika Singh, Adv. Mr. Varun Punia, AOR Respondent: Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR Ms. Saakshi Singh Rawat, Adv. Mr. Sunny Sachin Rawat, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Bahuguna, Adv. Case Name: ASHOK SAXENA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ETC., Criminal Appeal Nos.1704-1705/2015Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 163 Click here to read/ download the judgment

If A Intends To Kill B But Mistakenly Kills C, Intention To Kill C Is Attributed To A : Supreme Court Explains 'Transmigration Of Motive'

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags