Safiya Malik

The Supreme Court has modified a life sentence awarded in a 1992 murder case, converting the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to Section 304 Part-I, which pertains to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court considered the doctrine of transfer of malice under Section 301 IPC, holding that the accused had no direct intention to harm the deceased. Taking into account the passage of time and the appellant’s advanced age, the court reduced the sentence to the period already served.

The case originated from an incident in Kichha, Nainital, on June 25, 1992, where an altercation between two young men led to an escalation involving their families. The appellant, Ashok Saxena, and co-accused Yashpal Singh (now deceased) allegedly confronted the complainant's family. According to the prosecution, Saxena, armed with a knife, and Singh, carrying a hockey stick, entered the complainant’s home, where Saxena inflicted a fatal stab wound on the complainant’s wife.

Following the incident, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged at the Kichha Police Station. The trial court acquitted the accused in 1996, citing insufficient evidence. However, the State of Uttarakhand appealed to the High Court, which in 2010 convicted Saxena under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court had previously remanded the case to the High Court in 2014 due to procedural lapses, leading to a fresh conviction in 2015. Saxena, now 74 years old, challenged this ruling before the Supreme Court, arguing that the incident did not amount to murder but rather culpable homicide.

The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court erred in convicting Saxena under Section 302 IPC. The court acknowledged the presence of two eyewitnesses but focused on the application of Section 301 IPC, which addresses culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the intended victim. The court explained: "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."

Citing past judgments, the court held that even if Saxena had no intention to kill the complainant’s wife, the doctrine of transfer of malice made him liable. The court referred to Gyanendra Kumar v. State of U.P. (AIR 1972 SC 502), where an accused attempting to kill one person accidentally killed another and was held guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC. Similarly, in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1991 SC 982), an accused who mistakenly shot the wrong person was convicted under Section 302 IPC.

However, the court noted that the facts of the present case did not warrant a conviction under Section 302 IPC. It observed: "Having regard to the genesis of the occurrence, the case falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC."

Exception 4 applies when a death occurs in a sudden fight without premeditation. The court determined that Saxena’s actions, though unlawful, did not reflect the intent required for murder.

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal and modified the conviction:

1. Conviction Altered: The appellant’s conviction was changed from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

2. Sentence Reduced: The court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone, considering the appellant’s age (74 years) and the time elapsed since the incident (33 years).

3. Appeals Disposed Of: The judgment formally disposed of all pending appeals related to the case.

Case Title: Ashok Saxena v. The State of Uttarakhand & Others
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1704-1705 of 2015
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice R. Mahadevan

[Read/Download order]