The Supreme Court of India has recently clarified the legal principle of "transmigration of motive" as enshrined in Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This doctrine, also known as transfer of malice, establishes that if an offender intends to kill one person but mistakenly kills another, the law attributes the same intention to the actual victim. The judgment in Ashok Saxena v. State of Uttarakhand provides a significant interpretation of this legal principle.
Section 301 IPC 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 means that when an individual aims to kill one person but inadvertently kills another, the law treats it as if the intended target had actually been killed.
Read Also:- Acquittal in Criminal Case Does Not Prevent Departmental Inquiry: Supreme Court
Case Background
The case revolves around an incident that occurred in 1992, where the accused Ashok Saxena trespassed into the complainant’s house with a knife, intending to assault him. However, in a tragic turn of events, the complainant’s wife intervened and was fatally stabbed by the accused.
Trial Court Verdict (1996): The Trial Court acquitted Ashok Saxena, citing insufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
High Court Verdict (2010): The High Court overturned the acquittal and convicted Saxena under Section 302 IPC (Murder), sentencing him to life imprisonment.
Supreme Court Appeal (2025): The Supreme Court modified the conviction, applying Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, reducing the charge from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part-I IPC).
Read Also:- Supreme Court Condemns False Allegations of Misrepresentation, Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Cost
"If a person aims to kill one individual but accidentally kills another, the law considers that the actual victim was the intended target."
The Supreme Court referred to landmark cases to reinforce this doctrine:
Gyanendra Kumar v. State of UP (1972): The accused tried to shoot one individual but killed another, leading to conviction under Section 302 read with Section 301 IPC.
Hari Shankar Sharma v. State of Mysore (1979): The accused intended to kill a prosecution witness but shot someone else, establishing the application of Section 301 IPC.
Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (1991): The accused mistakenly shot a different individual, leading to a murder conviction.
Abdul Ise Suleman v. State of Gujarat (1995): The accused fired at a fleeing person but hit a child, affirming liability under Section 302 read with Section 301 IPC.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Rape and Kidnapping, Citing Marriage and Children
The Court acknowledged the "transfer of malice" principle and held Saxena guilty under Section 301 IPC.
However, considering his advanced age (74 years) and the fact that the incident took place in 1992, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
"The doctrine of transfer of malice ensures that the law does not allow offenders to escape liability merely because they did not intend to harm the actual victim."
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Exemption from Surrender Admissible Only When Petitioner is Sentenced to Imprisonment
Section 301 IPC applies even if the actual victim was not the intended target.
If the act was likely to cause death, the offender is still held accountable.
The Supreme Court’s modification of the sentence in this case demonstrates judicial discretion in assessing intent and circumstances.
