Nanhe vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Background
During a quarrel in a market, the appellant fired a country-made pistol at one Mahendra, with whom he had been arguing, but the bullet instead struck and killed a bystander, Saddam Hussain, who had no connection to the quarrel. The trial court convicted the appellant of murder under Section 302 IPC and under the Arms Act, and the High Court affirmed the conviction. The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that he had no intention to kill the deceased (his intended target was Mahendra) and that he was heavily intoxicated at the time, so his offence should be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court applied Section 301 IPC's "doctrine of transfer of malice," under which a person who intends to kill one individual but instead kills another is still guilty of murder, as the intention to kill is legally transferred to the actual victim. On the intoxication defence, the Court held that Section 86 IPC only excuses conduct where intoxication was administered without the person's knowledge or against his will and rendered him incapable of understanding his actions, since the appellant voluntarily drank, and evidence showed he was mentally alert enough to walk away and return with the weapon, this defence failed. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC and dismissed the appeal, while leaving the appellant free to seek remission under the applicable state policy.
Lesson Learnt
If a person intends to kill one person but accidentally kills someone else instead, the law treats it as if they killed their intended target. They cannot escape a murder conviction simply because the "wrong" person died; and voluntary intoxication is a defence only if it was so severe as to make the person incapable of understanding what they were doing.