Case Summary: Ashok Saxena v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) | Doctrine of Transferred Malice

The Supreme Court of India’s ruling in Ashok Saxena v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) holds significant importance in criminal jurisprudence, particularly with the doctrine of transferred malice (also known as transmigration of motive) under Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Currently, Section 102 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)].

The appeal stemmed from a conviction by the High Court of Uttarakhand, which overturned the acquittal granted by the Trial Court.

Title: Ashok Saxena v. State of Uttarakhand

Court: Supreme Court of India

Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1704-1705 of 2015

Coram: J.B. Pardiwala, J. & R. Mahadevan, J.

Date of Judgment: 30th January, 2025

Facts of the Case

1. The incident took place on June 25, 1992, in Hydel Colony, Kichha, District Nainital, where a confrontation occurred between the complainant Hetram’s family and the accused Ashok Saxena and Yashpal Singh.
2. Joginder Singh, the complainant's son, and Surinder Singh, son of the co-accused Yashpal Singh, had a dispute at a typing centre. This altercation escalated into further conflicts between the families.
3. On the evening of the incident, Ashok Saxena, armed with a knife, and Yashpal Singh, carrying a hockey stick, allegedly entered Hetram’s house with the intent to assault him.
4. When Hetram’s wife intervened to protect her husband, Ashok Saxena inflicted a knife blow to her abdomen, while Yashpal Singh allegedly restrained her hands.
5. The victim was rushed to the hospital but was declared dead.
6. An FIR was lodged by Hetram at Kichha Police Station, and the accused were charged with murder under Section 302 IPC (Section 103 of BNS).
   

Issues Raised

• Whether the doctrine of transferred malice under Section 301 IPC apply to the case?
• Whether the offence committed by the appellant falls under Section 302 IPC (Murder) or Section 304 IPC (Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder)?
• Whether the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant were justified considering the evidence on record?

Trial Court Decision

The Trial Court (Sessions Court, Nainital) in 1996 acquitted the accused, citing lack of sufficient evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. It held that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

High Court Decision

The State of Uttarakhand appealed against the acquittal, and a criminal revision was also filed by the complainant. The High Court, in 2010, overturned the acquittal and convicted Ashok Saxena under Section 302 IPC and Yashpal Singh under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Ashok Saxena was sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000.

The conviction was challenged in the Supreme Court, which remanded the matter back to the High Court, directing a fresh adjudication. The High Court again upheld the conviction upon rehearing, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision

1. Doctrine of Transferred Malice under Section 301 IPC

The Court relied on Section 301 IPC, which states that if a person, while intending to kill A, inadvertently kills B, the offence will still be culpable homicide or murder as if he had killed A.

The Supreme Court applied this doctrine, stating that even if the appellant intended to harm Hetram, he would still be held responsible for the death of Hetram’s wife.

Precedents cited:

• Gyanendra Kumar v. State of U.P. (AIR 1972 SC 502) – The accused, while targeting one person, unintentionally killed another. Held guilty under Section 302 read with Section 301 IPC.
• Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1991 SC 982) – Doctrine of transferred malice upheld where the accused, aiming at one person, mistakenly killed another.
• Abdul Ise Suleman v. State of Gujarat (1995 CrLJ 464) – The Court upheld a Section 302 conviction where indiscriminate firing resulted in the death of an unintended victim.

2. Whether the Offence Amounted to Murder or Culpable Homicide?

• The Supreme Court examined whether Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC [Exception 4 to Section 101, BNS] applied, which states that culpable homicide is not murder if it occurs due to a sudden fight, without premeditation, in a heat of passion, and without undue advantage or cruelty.
  
• The Court observed that the incident was sudden and arose out of a petty altercation.
• The appellant had no intention to kill the deceased and only aimed at Hetram.
• Therefore, the offence was reduced from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I IPC.

3. Modification of Sentence

The appellant had already undergone five years of imprisonment. Considering his advanced age (74 years) and the incident’s occurrence in 1992, the Supreme Court reduced his sentence to the period already undergone.

In Hari Shankar Sharma v. State of Mysore (1979 UJ 659 SC), the Court ruled that lack of premeditation in an attack justifies modification of the sentence.

Judgment

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC.
• The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
• The appellant was released from further imprisonment.
• The judgment reaffirmed the doctrine of transferred malice while balancing it against the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion

The case of Ashok Saxena v. State of Uttarakhand is an essential precedent in criminal law, particularly regarding the application of Section 301 IPC (Transferred Malice) and Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (Sudden Fight Doctrine). The Supreme Court's decision strikes a balance between upholding justice and recognizing mitigating circumstances, emphasizing that punishment must be proportionate to intent and circumstances.

The judgment reiterates that while transferred malice is a valid legal doctrine, courts must differentiate between murder and culpable homicide based on facts and intentions. This ruling serves as a guiding principle in criminal jurisprudence when assessing cases involving unintended victims in acts of violence.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment