Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

• Recently, the bench of Justices J.B.Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan has held that a culpable homicide may be committed even if the offender causes the death of a person he did not intend. 
• The Supreme Court held in the matter of Ashok Saxena v. The State of Uttarakhand Etc. (2025). 

What was the Background of the Ashok Saxena v. The State of Uttarakhand Etc (2025) Case? 

• The incident took place in 1992 in Kichan, Nainital, where Hetram lived with his family in the Hydel Colony. 
• Hetram's son Joginder Singh and another person named Surinder Singh (son of Yashpal Singh) were both learning typing at the same typing center. 
•  A few days before the incident, Joginder and Surinder had an argument at the typing center. 
• After learning about this argument, Hetram's nephew Man Singh complained about it to Surinder's father. 
• This led to Surinder beating up Joginder in the evening in the colony, which Hetram reported to his officers. 
• On the day of the incident, when Hetram's nephew went to pick up Joginder from the typing center, they encountered Ashok Saxena (appellant) and Yashpal Singh on a scooter who threatened them. 
• Later that evening, around 7:45 PM, when Hetram returned from duty: 
  • Appellant (armed with a knife) and Yashpal Singh (armed with a hockey stick) entered Hetram's house. 
  • They were allegedly pursuing Hetram. 
  • Hetram's wife tried to intervene to save him. 
  • During this intervention, the appellant allegedly stabbed Hetram's wife in the stomach while Yashpal Singh held her hands. 
  • The incident occurred in candlelight due to a power outage. 
  • Hetram's wife was taken to the hospital by rickshaw. She was declared dead upon arrival. 
  • The post-mortem revealed a 3cm deep cut wound in the stomach area that had damaged the liver. 
  • About 1.5 liters of blood was found in the stomach cavity 
• A First Information Report (FIR) was filed by the Hetram describing the incident following which the investigation was initiated. 
• The chargesheet was filed on the completion of the investigation before the Court of Sessions under the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).  
• Upon committal, the case came to be registered in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge II, Nainital. 
• The trial court, after examining four prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence, concluded that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. 
• The same was appealed before the High Court of Uttarakhand where the High Court the appeal filed by the State and held the appellant herein guilty of the alleged offence. 
  • It is relevant to note that one of the co-accused Yashpal passed away while the appeal was pending before the High Court.  
  • It is only the appellant who ultimately stood convicted for the offence of murder. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the present appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that: 
  • Supreme Court (First Round - 2014): 
    • The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment on procedural grounds. 
    • The key issue was that Ashok Saxena was not represented by counsel during the High Court proceedings. 
    • The Court remanded the case back to the High Court for a fresh hearing. 
    • The Supreme Court directed Saxena to appear before the High Court and allowed for appointment of amicus curiae if he remained unrepresented. 
  • Supreme Court (Final Round - 2025): 
    • The Court partially allowed the appeal. 
    • Modified the conviction from Section 302 (murder) to Section 304 Part-I (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
    • The Court applied Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, considering: 
      • The genesis of the occurrence. 
      • The fact that incident happened in 1992. 
      • The appellant's current age (74 years). 
    • Reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (slightly under 6 years). 
    • The Court relied on Section 301 IPC (doctrine of transfer of malice) to establish that even though the appellant might not have intended to kill Hetram's wife, he was still culpable as the death occurred while attempting to cause harm to Hetram. 
      • Section 301 embodies the doctrine of "transfer of malice" or "transmigration of motive." 
      • If A intends to kill B but accidentally kills C, the law attributes the intention to kill to C's death. 
      • The offender must have no intention to cause death of the person actually killed. 
      • The killing must occur while doing an act intended to cause death of someone else. 
      • The actual death must be neither intended nor known to be likely by the offender. 
      •  The Court's analysis emphasizes that under Section 301, the intended target's identity is irrelevant - the malicious intent transfers to whoever actually dies as a result of the act. 
• Based on the above observations it was held by the Supreme Court that culpable homicide may be committed even if the offender causes the death of a person he did not intend. 
• This case's journey through the courts spans over three decades, showing how the courts' interpretations evolved from complete acquittal to murder conviction, and finally to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 

What is the Concept of Doctrine of Transmigration of Motive? 

• About: 
  • The doctrine of transfer of malice or transmigration of malice is a legal principle that is applied in criminal law. 
  • It involves the transfer of criminal intent or malice from the intended target to an unintended target. 
• General Meaning: 
  • In other words, if an individual has the intent to commit a crime against one person but, in the course of committing that crime, ends up harming another person unintentionally, the law may transfer the criminal intent or malice from the intended target to the unintended target. 
• Purpose: 
  • This ensures that the accused is held responsible for the consequences of their actions, even if those consequences were not initially intended. 
• Illustration: 
  • Z with the intention to murder A, fires a gun but misses the target and unintentionally murders B. 
  • In this scenario, the Doctrine of Transfer of Malice may come into play, allowing the legal system to transfer Z’s criminal intent of murdering A to the murder of B. 
  • Z shall be held liable for the murder of B, even though that harm was not the intended target. 

Which Legal Provisions Covers Doctrine of Transmigration of Motive? 

• Section 301 of IPC: Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended 
  • 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. 
• The same has been covered under Section 102 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). 

Landmark Judgements 

• Gyanendra Kumar v. State of U.P. (1972) 
  • Accused tried to shoot a fleeing man but killed his own uncle. 
  • The court held it was murder under Section 302 read with Section 301 under IPC. 
• Hari Shankar Sharma v. State of Mysore (1979) 
  • Accused has no intention to kill the deceased but killed someone else. 
  • The court rejected the argument for a lesser offence, affirming Section 301 of IPC application. 
• Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (1991) 
  • The appellant shot at Surjit Kaur while aiming at Kapur Singh. 
  • The court applied the doctrine of transfer of malice to uphold murder conviction.