In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the scope of Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with the transmigration of motive, also known as the doctrine of transfer of malice. In the case of Ashok Saxena v. The State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1704-1705 of 2015), the apex court upheld that an individual can be held guilty of culpable homicide even if the actual victim was not the intended target. The decision underscores the principle that criminal liability extends beyond the intended victim if the accused commits an act knowing it is likely to cause death.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident on June 25, 1992, in Hydel Colony, Kichha, Nainital. According to the prosecution, Ashok Saxena and his co-accused Yashpal Singh (now deceased) had an altercation with the complainant’s family. The dispute escalated when Saxena and Singh forcibly entered the house of Hetram, the complainant, armed with a knife and a hockey stick.
As the confrontation unfolded, Hetram’s wife intervened to protect him. In the ensuing altercation, Ashok Saxena stabbed her in the abdomen, causing her death. The prosecution argued that even though Saxena may not have intended to kill the deceased, his actions constituted culpable homicide amounting to murder.
The Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge II, Nainital) acquitted both Saxena and Singh on November 6, 1996, citing insufficient evidence. However, the High Court of Uttarakhand overturned this verdict on July 14, 2010, convicting Saxena under Section 302 IPC (murder) and sentencing him to life imprisonment. Saxena then approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Involved
The key legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether Saxena’s actions constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC. His defense argued:
1. The accused did not intend to kill the deceased, as the conflict was originally with Hetram.
2. The act should be classified as culpable homicide rather than murder, as there was no premeditated intention to cause death.
3. The passage of 33 years since the incident and Saxena’s advanced age (74 years) should be considered for sentencing.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan delivered the judgment on January 30, 2025. The Court invoked Section 301 IPC, which 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.”
Key Observations of the Court
1. The court held that intent to kill is not a necessary prerequisite under Section 301 IPC. If an individual intends to cause harm to one person but ends up killing another, the offense is still punishable as if the original target was killed.
2. It cited precedents such as Gyanendra Kumar v. State of U.P. (AIR 1972 SC 502) and Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1991 SC 982), reaffirming that an accused cannot escape liability merely because the deceased was not the intended victim.
3. The doctrine of transfer of malice applies when an individual engages in an act that is inherently dangerous, regardless of the actual victim.
Modification of Conviction
While the Supreme Court upheld the application of Section 301 IPC, it found that the case fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, which allows for a reduction in punishment when a homicide occurs due to a sudden fight or provocation. The Court modified Saxena’s conviction from Section 302 (murder) to Section 304 Part-I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and reduced his sentence to the period already undergone, considering his age and time spent in custody (nearly six years).
