LI Network
Published on: November 23, 2023 at 11:30 IST
The Supreme Court invoked the ‘Doctrine of Transfer of Malice’ to affirm the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a murder case.
The appellant, who had no intention to kill the deceased, fired with the intention of settling a dispute with another individual, Mahendra.
Despite the unintended target, the court ruled that the ‘Doctrine of Transfer of Malice’ holds that if there is a ‘mens rea’ (guilty mind) of committing an offense, it can be transferred to another.
The court provided a clear example, stating, “An example could be given of a person who had the intention to kill a person but by mistake kills another person; then he would still be held guilty of committing murder even in the absence of intention to kill that particular person.”
The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, heard an appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision that upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC in a murder case.
The incident in question occurred on May 30, 2007, when the appellant, Nanhe, fired a shot during a quarrel with Mahendra. The shot unintentionally hit the deceased, Saddam Hussain, who died as a result. Mahendra sustained injuries.
The trial court, on May 14, 2010, found Nanhe guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court affirmed the conviction and sentence in 2019.
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC could be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, considering he had no intention to kill the deceased.
The court referred to Section 301 of IPC, encapsulating the ‘Doctrine of Transfer of Malice.’ It clarified that the focus is on the ‘mens rea’ of committing an offense, and this intent can be transferred even if the result is the death of a different individual.
Citing relevant cases, including Shankarlal Kacharabhai v. State of Gujarat and Rajbir Singh v. State of U.P., the court emphasized that the intention to kill another person is not decisive. Instead, the critical factor is the intention to commit the offense, even if it inadvertently results in the death of a different individual.
In light of these principles, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s judgment, maintaining the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder.
The decision reinforces the application of the ‘Doctrine of Transfer of Malice’ in cases where the intent to commit an offense is present, regardless of the unintended target’s identity.
Case Title: Nanhe v. State of UP