Doctrine Of Transfer Of Malice Is Attracted Even When Accused Has No Intention To Cause Death; Would Be Guilty U/s 302 IPC: SC
The Supreme Court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC in a 1992 case.

The Supreme Court has explained that the doctrine of transfer of malice as contemplated under Section 301 of the IPC becomes applicable if an accused has no intention to cause death of a victim.
The Court partly allowed the Appeal filed by the accused altering his conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I of the IPC while also reducing the sentence to the period already undergone considering the age of the accused (74 years) and the fact that the incident occurred in 1992. The Uttarakhand High Court in 2015 had reversed the Trial Court’s acquittal and convicted the accused for murder.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held that “ it is evident that even if it is held for the sake of argument that the appellant had no intention to cause death of the deceased, it will have to be held that doctrine of transfer of malice, as contemplated under Section 301, is applicable to the facts of the present case and that the appellant would be guilty under Section 302 of the IPC.”
Senior Advocate Narender Hooda represented the Appellant, while AOR Sudarshan Singh Rawat appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The accused and the co-accused had allegedly trespassed the informant’s house, and in the ensuing altercation, the accused gave a knife blow to the victim’s stomach, leading to her death.
In his appeal before the Supreme Court, the accused argued that the Trial Court’s acquittal should not have been disturbed, as the evidence did not conclusively establish an intent to commit murder. It was also contended that even if the prosecution’s case was accepted, the incident fell under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. Further, it was submitted that the accused had already served over five years in prison.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court modified the impugned Judgment of the High Court ordering that “the appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC.”
The Court referred to its decision in Abdul Ise Suleman v. State of Gujarat (1995) wherein the Apex Court held, “such firing was resorted to in a locality where there were number of shops and provision of Section 301 of the IPC was clearly attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 301 of the IPC was upheld,”
The Bench also referred to the decision in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (1991) wherein the accused had shot at another person even though he aimed at a different person. “After applying doctrine of transfer of malice as contemplated under Section 301 of the IPC, this Court has held that Jagpal had made himself punishable under Section 302 of the IPC,” it explained.
Consequently, the Court held, “Having altered the conviction from Section 302 to section 304 Part-I, we reduce the sentence to the period already undergone keeping two things in mind the year of the incident i.e. 1992 and the age of the appellant as on date, 74 years.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Ashok Saxena v. The State Of Uttarakhand (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 148)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Narender Hooda; Advocates Jasbir Singh Malik, Rhythm Bharadwaj, Suman Sharma and Niharika Singh; AOR Varun Punia
Respondent: Advocates Saakshi Singh Rawat, Sunny Sachin Rawat and Ajay Kumar Bahuguna; AOR Sudarshan Singh Rawat