Supreme Court Clarifies Doctrine of Transfer of Malice Under IPC Section 301
The Supreme Court recently explained the concept of transfer of malice under Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This provision states that if a person intends to kill someone but ends up killing another person, the law attributes the same intent to the actual victim.
The Bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, highlighted that culpable homicide occurs even when the intended victim is different from the actual victim. The act must have been committed with the intent or knowledge of likely causing death.
Illustration of Transfer of Malice
The Court used an example to explain Section 301:
If A intends to kill B but mistakenly kills C, the intention to kill C is legally attributed to A.
If the act that caused C’s death was intentional or likely to cause death, the law considers it as though A’s real intention was carried out.
Case Background
The case involved an appellant who trespassed into a house with a knife, intending to attack the informant. During the incident, the informant’s wife intervened, and the appellant stabbed her in the abdomen. She later succumbed to her injuries.
A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the accused. However, the Trial Court acquitted him, citing a lack of evidence. The High Court reversed this decision, convicting him of murder under Section 302 IPC. The case then reached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
After analyzing the case, the Court held that even if the appellant did not intend to kill the deceased, Section 301 applied, making him guilty under Section 302 IPC.
Exception Granted Under Section 300
However, the Court considered Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, which states that culpable homicide is not murder if committed:
Without premeditation
In a sudden fight
Based on this, the Supreme Court modified the conviction to Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
Reduced Sentence Due to Old Age
The incident occurred in 1992 and the appellant was of advanced age. The Court reduced his sentence to the time already served.
This ruling reinforces the doctrine of transfer of malice and its impact on criminal liability under Indian law.
