Doctrine of transfer of malice renders accused liable for murder despite striking an unintended victim.

On August 27, 2019, the appellant (Rizwan) approached the informant at a shop and demanded money.

When the informant refused, the appellant fired a pistol at him.

The first shot missed; however, a second shot struck and killed Shakir, a nearby laborer.

The appellant was apprehended by a crowd and subsequently convicted in Session Trial No. 658 of 2019 for offenses under Sections 302, 307, and 506 of the IPC, and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

The appellant filed an application under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal, asserting he had no intention to kill the deceased and had no prior criminal record.

1. Whether a conviction under Section 302 IPC is sustainable when the fatal shot was intended for a different individual but struck the deceased by mistake

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to suspension of sentence and bail based on his period of incarceration and alleged lack of criminal history

The court primarily applied Section 301 of the IPC, which governs culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person whose death was intended.

This section incorporates the "Doctrine of Transfer of Malice" or "Transmigration of Motive," establishing that if a person intends to cause death but kills an unintended victim, the offense remains the same as if the intended victim had died.

The court relied on the precedent in Nanhe vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 13 SCC 765, which affirmed that the intention to kill the specific deceased person is immaterial if the general mens rea to commit murder exists.

It further referenced Shankerlal Kacharabhai v. State of Gujarat (1965) and Rajbir Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) to reinforce that accidental injury to a third party during an intentional attack does not mitigate the offense.

The court dismissed the appellant's argument that the offense should be downgraded to Section 304 IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

It reasoned that under Section 301 IPC, the law attributes the intent to kill the informant to the death of the bystander, Shakir.

Applying the "Doctrine of Transfer of Malice," the court found that the appellant’s act of firing a second shot after the first missed demonstrated a clear intention to kill, which legally transfers to the actual victim.

Regarding the plea for bail, the court observed a discrepancy in the appellant's claims; while he asserted no criminal history, the State produced records of 27 pending cases against him, including charges of murder, attempt to murder, and dacoity.

The court found the appellant’s explanation of this history insufficient and characterized him as a "man of criminal character"

Given the severity of the offense and the appellant's extensive criminal antecedents, the court rejected the application for suspension of sentence and bail

The court directed the office to prepare the paper book and listed the main appeal for hearing on July 6, 2026