Doctrine of Transfer of Malice, Supreme Court Explains
Pranav B Prem
The Supreme Court has reiterated that Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the one intended, embodies the doctrine of transmigration of motive or transfer of malice. A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan observed that an accused may be held guilty of culpable homicide even if the actual victim was not the intended target, provided the killing occurred while carrying out an act that the offender intended or knew was likely to cause death.
Doctrine of Transfer of Malice
While explaining Section 301 IPC, the bench observed: "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 court further emphasized: "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
The case stemmed from an incident in 1992, where the appellant Ashok Saxena, armed with a knife, trespassed into the informant's house intending to assault him. However, during the altercation, the informant's wife intervened, and the appellant inflicted a fatal knife blow on her abdomen. She succumbed to her injuries. The trial court acquitted the accused, citing a lack of conclusive evidence. However, the Uttarakhand High Court overturned this verdict and convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC (murder). The matter subsequently reached the Supreme Court.
Application of Section 301 IPC
The Supreme Court referred to several precedents where the doctrine of transfer of malice was applied:
-
Gyanendra Kumar v. State of U.P. (AIR 1972 SC 502): The accused attempted to shoot a person but accidentally killed another. The Court held the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC read with Section 301 IPC.
-
Hari Shankar Sharma v. State of Mysore (1979 UJ 659 SC): The accused fired a shot intending to kill a particular person but mistakenly killed another. The Court rejected the argument that the act constituted mere negligence and upheld the murder conviction.
-
Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1991 SC 982): The accused shot at one person but ended up killing another. The Court held him guilty under Section 302 IPC, applying Section 301 IPC.
-
Abdul Ise Suleman v. State of Gujarat (1995 CrLJ 464): The accused fired at a group, hitting a ten-year-old boy. The Court upheld the murder conviction, rejecting the argument that the act was unintentional.
Applying these precedents, the Supreme 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."
Modification of Conviction
Despite holding that Section 301 IPC was applicable, the Court granted the appellant the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which applies when a culpable homicide occurs without premeditation in a sudden fight. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). Considering the appellant's age (74 years) and the passage of time since the incident, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.
This judgment reinforces the principle that an accused’s intent is legally transferred to the unintended victim if the act falls within the scope of Section 301 IPC. The ruling clarifies that the doctrine of transmigration of motive applies even if the accused had no specific intent to harm the actual victim, as long as the act was inherently dangerous and directed at someone.
Cause Title: Ashok Saxena v/s The state of Uttarakhand Etc.
Case No: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1704-1705 OF 2015
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan
[Read/Download order]
