Free Download
Transfer of Malice Explained- Section 301, 302 & 304 IPC
17-04-2025 07:00:33 | APS Judicial Academy
ASHOK
SAXENA v. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND ETC. (2025) SC
Timeline
of Key Events
- 1992- Accused Ashok Saxena (with a knife) and co-accused Yashpal Singh (with a hockey stick) entered the complainant Hetram’s house and created a ruckus.
- When Hetram’s wife tried to intervene, Ashok Saxena allegedly stabbed her. She was taken to the hospital but declared dead on arrival.
- An FIR was lodged the same night. After investigation, charges were framed under Section 302 IPC.
- 1996-The Trial Court acquitted both Ashok Saxena and Yashpal Singh.
- 1997-The State and complainant appealed the acquittal.
- 2007-Co-accused Yashpal Singh died during the appeal process.
- 2010-The High Court convicted both, sentencing them to life imprisonment.
- 2014-The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the High Court for rehearing due to lack of representation. · 2015-The High Court again convicted Ashok Saxena after rehearing.
- 2015-Ashok Saxena appealed to the Supreme Court again.
- 2025-The Supreme Court modified Ashok Saxena’s conviction to culpable homicide, reducing his sentence to time served.
- Whether the case should fall under Section 302 (murder) or Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder)?
- The court also examined the doctrine of ‘transfer of malice’ under Section 301 IPC, which applies when an accused intends to harm one person but kills another, and whether Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (excluding certain sudden fights from murder) was applicable.
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, modifying the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
Key Reasoning
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was grounded in a detailed analysis of intent and legal principles:
- Lack of Intention to Kill the Deceased: The court found that Ashok Saxena’s primary intention was to harm Hetram, not his wife. Her death occurred when she intervened during the confrontation, suggesting no premeditated intent to kill her specifically. This led to rejecting the murder charge under Section 302 IPC.
- Doctrine of Transfer of Malice (Section 301 IPC): The court analyzed Section 301 IPC, which embodies the doctrine of transfer of malice. However, it concluded that while the doctrine applied (as the intention to harm Hetram transferred to the deceased), it was insufficient to sustain a murder conviction given the lack of intent to kill her and the sudden nature of the incident.
- Application of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC: The court held that the case fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, as the act was committed without premeditation during a sudden fight in the heat of passion. The confrontation was spontaneous, with no undue advantage taken or cruel manner employed, fitting the exception’s criteria.
- Evidence and Witness Testimony: The court did not extensively re-evaluate witness credibility but focused on legal interpretation. The FIR, eyewitness accounts (Hetram and Joginder Singh), and post-mortem report were considered, but the emphasis was on intent rather than factual disputes.
- Mitigating Factors: The court considered Ashok Saxena’s advanced age and the significant delay in the case. Given he had already served 5-6 years and the incident was from 1992, reducing the sentence to the period undergone was deemed appropriate.
- Gyanendra Kumar v. State of U.P., AIR 1972 SC 502 This case established a foundational principle for the doctrine of transfer of malice under Section 301 IPC. The accused’s intention to kill the fleeing man was clear, and the unintentional killing of his uncle was treated as murder due to the transferred intent. The court’s reasoning emphasized that the accused’s mens rea (guilty mind) remained intact, regardless of the victim’s identity.
- Hari Shankar Sharma v. State of Mysore, 1979 UJ 659 (SC) This case reinforced the application of Section 301 IPC in scenarios where the accused’s intended target is different from the actual victim. The court rejected lesser charges like Section 304A, emphasizing that the intent to kill, even if misdirected, results in murder liability.
- Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 982 This case further reiterated the doctrine of transfer of malice, particularly in cases involving firearms. The court said that if someone aims to kill one person but ends up killing another, it can still be considered murder under Section 302 IPC.
- Abdul Ise Suleman v. State of Gujarat, 1995 CrLJ 464 This case dealt with a scenario where the accused fired at a group, killing an unintended victim, and the court upheld murder charges under Section 302 read with Section 301 IPC. The ruling rejected arguments of negligence (Section 304A IPC), emphasizing the intent to cause death. In the current judgment, this precedent was cited to demonstrate that acts with intent to cause death, even if resulting in an unintended victim’s death, attract murder liability.