Summary
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that an accused who stabbed the informant's wife while she intervened, his intended target being the informant, lacked the intention required for culpable homicide, holding that Section 301 IPC (transfer of malice) attributes the intended mental state to him. However, having regard to the genesis of the occurrence, it brought the case within Exception 4 to Section 300, altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I, and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone given the 1992 incident and the appellant's age of 74.
Issues
- Whether an accused who intended to harm the informant but fatally stabbed the informant's wife when she intervened can escape liability for murder or culpable homicide for want of intention towards the deceased.
- Whether the offence fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC so as to reduce the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I.
- What sentence was appropriate given the age of the incident and of the appellant.
Provisions considered
- Section 301, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court explained that Section 301 embodies the doctrine of transfer of malice: where a person, doing an act he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, kills someone whose death he neither intended nor knew to be likely, the homicide is of the same description as if he had killed the intended victim. Relying on Gyanendra Kumar, Hari Shankar Sharma, Jagpal Singh and Abdul Ise Suleman, it held the provision answered the plea that the appellant had no intention to harm the deceased. (¶¶ 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42)
- Section 300, Exception 4, Indian Penal Code, 1860Without re-examining the eye-witness evidence, the Court held that, having regard to the genesis of the occurrence, the case fell within Exception 4 (culpable homicide without premeditation in a sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel). (¶¶ 43, 44)
- Sections 302 and 304 Part I, Indian Penal Code, 1860The High Court's conviction under Section 302 was altered to one under Section 304 Part I, and the sentence reduced to the period already undergone. (¶¶ 45, 46)
Held
- Under Section 301 IPC, if A intends to kill B but kills C, whose death he neither intends nor knows to be likely, the intention to kill is attributed to A in respect of C. An accused cannot therefore claim that the offence is not culpable homicide merely because he bore no intention towards the deceased, who came in between him and his intended victim. (¶¶ 36, 37, 42)
- Even assuming the appellant had no intention to cause the death of the deceased, the doctrine of transfer of malice under Section 301 applied to the facts, and the appellant's plea that only knowledge could be attributed to him was rejected. (¶¶ 35, 42)
- Having regard to the genesis of the occurrence, the case fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, and the conviction was altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC. (¶¶ 44, 45)
- Considering that the incident occurred in 1992 and the appellant was 74 years old, the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. (¶¶ 27, 46)
Result
Appeals partly allowed; conviction altered from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC and sentence reduced to the period already undergone.