Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Of Man Who Killed Bystander While Aiming At Another; Invokes 'Doctrine Of Transfer Of Malice'

"If a person has an intention to commit an offence or cause death of any person but kills one whose death he never intended to cause, he would still be guilty of causing death," Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling , held that a person is liable for murder under Section 302 IPC even if their shot accidentally strikes a bystander instead of the intended target.

A bench comprising Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay observed that under the "Doctrine of Transfer of Malice" enshrined in Section 301 IPC, the culpable homicide is of the same description as it would have been had the intended victim died.

Appellant Accused Of Killing Labourer While Targeting Shopkeeper

The case arose from an incident in August 2019 where the appellant, Rizwan, allegedly demanded money from an informant at his shop. When the informant refused, the appellant fired a pistol with the intent to kill him. While the first shot missed, the second shot struck a nearby labourer, Shakir, who later died during treatment. The appellant was subsequently convicted for murder and attempt to murder by the trial court.

Appellant Claims Offence Only Amounts To Culpable Homicide

The primary question before the Court was whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC could be sustained when the appellant had no specific motive or intention to kill the deceased bystander. The Court was also called upon to determine if the sentence should be suspended under Section 389 CrPC, considering the appellant’s claim of having no criminal history and having served over five years in prison.

Court Explains Section 301 IPC & Doctrine Of Transfer Of Malice

Rejecting the appellant's contention that the offence should be downgraded to Section 304 IPC, the Court delved into the legal mechanics of Section 301 of the IPC. The bench noted that this provision embodies what is known as the "transmigration of motive." It stipulates that if a person intends to cause the death of one individual but causes the death of another, the legal nature of the crime remains unchanged.

Intention To Kill Attributed To Actual Victim By Law

The Court emphasized that when there is a clear mens rea to commit an offence, that malice can be legally transferred from the intended object to the actual victim. Even if the shot misses the mark and hits another person, whether within or out of sight, the law deems the offender to have hit the actual victim with the specific intention to kill.

"The intention to kill some other person is not material inasmuch as he had the intention of committing the aforesaid offence though accidentally he might have killed another person."

Reliance On Supreme Court Precedent In Nanhe v. State of U.P.

The High Court placed heavy reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Nanhe v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024). In that case, the apex court clarified that if the killing took place in the course of an act which the person intended or knew to be likely to cause death, it must be treated as if the real intention of the killer had been actually carried out. The bench noted that the Supreme Court has consistently held such offenders punishable under Section 302 IPC.

Court Rejects Plea That Accused Had No Motive Against Deceased

Referring to the Shankerlal Kacharabhai and Rajbir Singh cases, the bench observed that the fact that a victim was accidentally hit makes no difference to the culpability of the accused. Since the prosecution version established that Rizwan intended to cause firearm injuries to the informant, any death resulting from that attempt constitutes murder, regardless of who the victim was.

"The aforesaid provision clearly shows that if the killing took place in the course of doing an act which a person intends or knows to be likely to cause death, it ought to be treated as if the real intention of the killer had been actually carried out."

Suppression Of Extensive Criminal History Noted By Bench

A critical factor in the denial of bail was the appellant’s conduct regarding his antecedents. While the appellant’s affidavit claimed he had no prior criminal record, the State produced a list of 27 criminal cases against him. These included serious charges such as murder, attempt to murder, dacoity with murder, and offences under the Gangsters Act and Arms Act.

No Case For Suspension Of Sentence For 'Man Of Criminal Character'

The Court found that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his extensive criminal history in his supplementary affidavit. Labeling the appellant a "man of criminal character," the bench concluded that his involvement in numerous heinous crimes disentitled him to any discretionary relief. The Court held that the gravity of the offence combined with the appellant's background outweighed the period of incarceration already served.

The High Court dismissed the application for suspension of sentence and bail, affirming that the trial court's conviction was based on a correct application of the Doctrine of Transfer of Malice. The bench directed the office to prepare the paper book and listed the main appeal for final hearing in July 2026.

Date of Decision: 20 April 2026