IPC Section 301 - Culpable Homicide By Causing Death Of Person Other Than Whose Death Was Intended

The Doctrine of Transference of Malice, as provided under Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) deals with the situation where an act, intended to harm one person, accidentally causes damage to another. In such scenarios, the legal principle ensures that the offender remains liable for all the damage caused due to his act irrespective of whether the actual victim was the intended target of that unlawful act.

This implies that a criminal intent to commit an act (or mens rea) can be transferred from the targeted victim to the one who was actually harmed. Consequently, although the victim injured was not the one to whom the perpetrator intended to cause harm, the criminal liability for the offence is still the same.

Legal Provision: Section 301- Culpable Homicide By Causing Death Of Person Other Than Person Whose Death Was Intended

“Section 301- 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.”

Simplified Explanation Of IPC Section 301

Section 301 of the Code stipulates that the intent of a person to kill one person results in the unintended death of another. The law is clear that the degree and culpability of the crime remains the same as if the offender has succeeded in killing whom he intended to kill. That is to say, this provision is essentially made to ensure that a person cannot be let loose simply because the actual victim was not the intended target of the accused. 

As per Section 301 of the Code, if a person does any act with either an intention or knowledge that their act could likely cause the death of another person, and thereby causes the death of another person (other than the one they meant to or whom they thought they were likely to kill), they will be guilty of culpable homicide. They will be considered to have killed the person whom they thought they were likely to kill.

Elements Of Section 301 Of The Code

For Section 301 of the IPC to apply, the following elements need to be satisfied:

• Intent to cause death or knowledge of likely consequences: The person should have intended to cause death or known that his act would most likely result in causing death. This mens rea is a crucial ingredient for the applicability of transferred malice.

• Act involving the death of a person other than one intended to be Killed: Such an act of the accused should result in the killing of a person other than the person whom he intended to kill. The death should be the direct consequence of the act with the required mens rea.

• Unlawful act: Such an act leading to death should be unlawful and not justified by law.

• Transfer of Mens Rea: The malice, intent, or knowledge is transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim. Thus, the accused will always be accountable for the death.

Practical Examples Illustrating IPC Section 301

Here are some practical examples to illustrate Section 301 of the Code:

Case Of Mistaken Identity

• Facts: A intends to kill B by shooting him with a gun. While focusing on B, A in error or mistakenly hits and kills C who is a stranger not intended to be hit.

• Application: Even if A aimed at killing B and not C, the death of C is covered as culpable homicide under Section 301. 

• Outcome: A would be liable for the same crime of culpable homicide as if B had died because A knew that his actions were likely to cause death.

Death By Accident Of Third Person

• Facts: X and Y are physically fighting. X intends to kill Y with a knife. Z, who tries to save Y, gets accidentally stabbed to death by X.

• Application: X did not intend to kill Z, but since the acts of X acts were intended to kill Y and he knew his acts may cause death, the death of Z is considered, for the purpose of Section 301, as if X had caused the death of Y.

• Outcome: X would be liable under the head of culpable homicide although it was Z, and not Y, who was killed.

Throwing A Bomb

• Facts: D throws a bomb in a crowd intending to kill E, but E escapes and an innocent person F dies in the crowd.

• Application: The intention of D was to kill E. However, the death of F is culpable homicide under Section 301. 

• Outcome: D is guilty of culpable homicide. The intention to cause death was present and it is immaterial whether the victim was not the intended target. 

Poisoning Food

• Facts: G intends to murder H by poisoning the food of H. However, J, a friend of H, inadvertently consumes the food and dies instead.

• Application: Although G did not intend to kill J, the intent to poison food intended to be given to H, which would certainly and necessarily cause death results in Section 301 covering the death of J as culpable homicide.

• Outcome: G would be held to have committed culpable homicide for the death of J as if H had died.

Firing Into A Crowd

• Facts: K, with an intention to kill L, fires his revolver into a crowded area where L is present. The bullet misses L and kills M.

• Application: Although K had no intent to kill M, the attempt to shoot at the crowd with an intention to kill L is deemed culpable homicide under Section 301. The liability of K is evaluated as if he had murdered L.

• Outcome: K is guilty of culpable homicide for the death of M.

Penalties And Punishments Under IPC Section 301

Section 301 is culpable homicide which is subject to two different possible Sections of the Code. 

• If it attracts the application of Section 299 of the Code (Culpable Homicide): When the act under Section 301 attracts the application of Section 299, he will be punished as per Section 304 of the Code in the following manner:

  • Life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10 years and fine: When the act has been done with an intention of causing death.

  • Imprisonment up to 10 years or fine or both: Where such an act has been done with knowledge but without any intention to cause death..

• If it is covered under Section 300 of the Code (Murder): When the act under Section 301 attracts the application of Section 300, he will be punished as per Section 302 of the Code in the following manner:

  • Death penalty or life imprisonment and fine: Where the culpable homicide comes within the scope of murder. 

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder and murder differ in the intensity of the intent and specific circumstances under which commission of the act took place.

Notable Case Laws Related To IPC Section 301

Emperor vs. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy (1912)

The case is about the murder of a young girl, Rajalakshmi, who had consumed sweets infused with poison prepared for the other man, Appala Narasimhulu. In the attempt to kill Narasimhulu through sweets, the accused did not know that Rajalakshmi was to consume them. The discussion in the judgments was the question of whether the accused could be held guilty of committing the murder of Rajalakshmi as he had no intention of killing her. The majority opinion affirmed, on the basis of precedent and the definition of culpable homicide in the Code. The Madras High Court went further and held as follows:

• Section 301 defines that though the accused did not have the intention or foresee to kill the actual victim, culpable homicide could still be committed. The Court held that the law is designed to protect all alike, and killing a human being, irrespective of who falls, is a crime.

• The Court observed that Section 301 must be construed with Sections 299 and 300. The Court, therefore, held that Section 301 applies where the proposed victim survives but the other person dies as a result of the act of the wrongdoer.

• It was evident, therefore, that intent and the knowledge of the offender are to be considered in determining the gravity of the offence.

• The Court then clarified that Section 301 ensures the culpability in relation to the homicide, whether murder or lesser offence, shall depend upon the intent or knowledge of the offender towards the person whom they aimed to kill. The Court pointed out that criminal intent of the offender, in this case, attempting to kill Appala Narasimhulu, made it a crime, even if the death caused was and not intended. 

Rajbir Singh vs. State Of U.P. & Anr (2006)

This case deals with the dismissal of charges against one of the accused (Akhilesh Chauhan) of a murder. The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the High Court to dismiss the charges against the accused due to the claim of the prosecution that the accused was not involved in the shooting. The Supreme Court, however, overturned this and held that the principle of transferred malice applies even if Chauhan had not directly aimed at Pooja Balmiki, who was the victim. This Section 301 of the Code states that if a person intends to kill one but kills another through an accident in the process, then he is still liable for murder. Based on these remarks, the Supreme Court directed that the charge against Chauhan be restored and he be tried.

The key findings by the Court are as follows:

• Section 301 of the Code is referred to as the doctrine of “transferred malice” or “transmigration of motive.” It arises where a person X intends to commit the offence of murder of Z, but by accident kills Y. Thus, Section 301 of the Code deems this as if X had intended to kill Y.

• The judgement of the High Court was set aside when it failed to apply Section 301 of the Code to the facts of the case while dismissing the charges against Akhilesh Chauhan.

• The High Court had accepted the argument that it was not fired at Pooja Balmiki and that she was hit accidentally. However, the Supreme Court emphasised that the intention to cause harm, even if directed at someone else, is crucial in determining the applicability of Section 301.

• The Court relied on the precedent in Shankarlal Kacharabhai & Ors. vs. The State of Gujarat (1964), wherein the principle of transferred intent came to be explained. It is a principle laid down by the case whereby if somebody intends to kill a person but misses him and kills another, the law attributes the intent to kill to the person who was actually killed, even if that person was not the intended victim.

Thereby, the Supreme Court has clearly reiterated that Section 301 of the Code ensures that individuals are held responsible for deaths that result from their actions, even if the deceased was not the intended target. The interpretation of the Court highlights the fact that if there is an intent to cause death, without any regard to whom it would hit, then it can definitely be said to make Section 301 of the Code. applicable.

Recent Changes

Since the incorporation of Section 301 of the Code, there has been no changes to it. Section 301 of the Code has been incorporated under Section 102 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 without any changes. 

Summary

The doctrine of transferred malice finds the right space in Section 301 of the Code, for the purpose of maintaining justice where harm has been caused to an unintended victim. It ensures that the intent or knowledge of the offender is transferred to the actual victim since the law always holds a person responsible for the consequences of his act. In such circumstances, the identity of the victim does not matter.

This principle aligns with the general purpose of criminal law, which is to prevent wrongful conduct and protect people from any harm. The principle behind Section 301 of the Code reinforces the idea that the perpetrators cannot find a way out of responsibility because that their intended target was not the victim.

Key Insights & Quick Facts

• Chapter: Section 301 falls under Chapter XVI of the Code. Chapter XVI deals with the offences affecting the human body. 

• Bailable: As per Schedule I of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”), offences falling under Section 301 of the Code is non-bailable. 

• Cognizable: As per Schedule I of CrPC, offences falling under Section 301 of the Code is cognizable. 

• Compoundable: Section 301 of the Code does not fall within the scope of the list of compoundable offences as given under Section 320 of CrPC. 

• Triable by: As per Schedule I of CrPC, offences falling under Section 301 of the Code is triable by Court of Session. 

• Intentional act or knowledge of likely outcome: The person should have intended or known that his act is likely to cause death.

• Death of unintended person: The actual death caused is of a person whose death the offender neither intended nor foresaw as likely.

• Classification of culpable homicide: The offence will be treated in the manner as if the accused had caused the death of the person who he intended or had knowledge to kill. 

• Legal outcome: The nature of the culpable homicide does not change even though the deceased person was not the intended victim.

• No direct Intent towards the actual victim: The provision applies even if the person who died was not the one who was directly targeted by the actions of the accused.