The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) marks a significant reform in India's criminal jurisprudence aiming to modernize and simplify the legal framework. Among its pivotal provisions Section 102 BNS addresses complex scenarios where an individual's actions, intended to harm a specific person, inadvertently result in the death of another . This section encapsulates the doctrine of "transferred malice," ensuring that the perpetrator's culpability remains intact even when the actual victim differs from the intended target .

Understanding Section 102 of BNS 2023 is crucial for legal practitioners, students and citizens alike as it delineates the boundaries of criminal liability in cases of misdirected intent . By codifying this principle the BNS reinforces the notion that intent and knowledge are paramount in determining culpability irrespective of the actual victim . This article provides an in-depth analysis of Section 102 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, exploring its bare act language, interpretation, essential elements, and its impact on the legal landscape. Explore other important Judiciary Notes.

Section 102 BNS

Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended

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.

Note: "The information provided above has been sourced from the official website, i.e., Indian Code. While the content has been presented here for reference, no modifications have been made to the original laws and orders" 

Free Download PDF on Section 102 BNS

 Section 102 BNS embodies the legal doctrine of "transferred malice," wherein the intent to harm one individual is legally transferred to the unintended victim who suffers the consequences of the act . This principle ensures that a perpetrator cannot evade liability merely because the actual victim was not the intended target .

For instance, if Person A aims to shoot Person B but accidentally shoots and kills Person C instead Section 102 of BNS 2023 holds Person A accountable as if Person B had been killed . The law focuses on the perpetrator's intent and knowledge at the time of the act, not on the identity of the victim.

This provision is crucial in maintaining the integrity of criminal liability, emphasizing that the consequences of a deliberate act cannot be mitigated by unforeseen outcomes . By codifying this doctrine Section 102 under BNS ensures that justice is served by holding individuals accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their intentional or knowingly harmful actions even when those consequences affect unintended victims.

Section 102 BNS Essential Elements

To establish culpability under Section 102 BNS, the following elements must be present:

• Intent or Knowledge: The perpetrator must have intended to cause death or knew that their actions were likely to cause death.
   
• Act Leading to Death: An act was committed that resulted in the death of a person.
   
• Unintended Victim: The person who died was not the individual whom the perpetrator intended to harm or knew was likely to be harmed.
   
• Transferred Liability : The law treats the act as if the intended victim had died transferring the perpetrator's intent to the actual victim .

These elements underscore the principle that criminal liability is determined by the perpetrator's mental state and actions, not by the identity of the victim. Section 102 BNS punishment aligns with the severity of the intended offense, ensuring that justice is not circumvented due to unintended outcomes.

Section 102 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is both preventive and corrective in nature . It serves to deter individuals from engaging in acts intended to cause harm knowing that they will be held accountable even if the harm befalls someone other than the intended target . This provision ensures that the legal system addresses the full spectrum of culpable homicides including those resulting from misdirected intent .

The scope of BNS Section 102 extends to all acts where the perpetrator's intent or knowledge of likely death is established regardless of the actual victim. This includes scenarios such as mistaken identity crossfire incidents, or any situation where the harm intended for one person affects another . By encompassing these situations Section 102 BNS act reinforces the principle that the sanctity of human life is paramount and accountability cannot be evaded through technicalities .

Comparison with IPC Section 301

Before BNS, similar conduct was covered under section 301 of  Indian Penal Code (IPC). The transition to Section 102 BNS preserved the structure while fitting into the reformed legal framework under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

This comparison highlights that while the essence of the provision remains consistent, Section 102 under BNS offers a more contemporary and accessible articulation, aligning with the objectives of the BNS to modernize legal language and enhance clarity.

Section 102 BNS Judicial Interpretation 

The judiciary has consistently upheld the doctrine encapsulated in Section 102 BNS emphasizing that the perpetrator's intent or knowledge at the time of the act is paramount in determining culpability. Courts have ruled that when an individual commits an act with the intent to cause death or with knowledge that death is likely, they are liable for the consequences, even if the actual victim differs from the intended target.

In interpreting Section 102 of BNS 2023, courts have reinforced that the identity of the victim does not absolve the perpetrator of liability . The focus remains on the mental state and actions of the accused . This interpretation ensures that individuals cannot escape accountability due to unforeseen outcomes maintaining the integrity of the legal system and upholding the principle that intent and knowledge are central to criminal responsibility.

Section 102 BNS Landmark Cases 

Several landmark cases have shaped the understanding and application of Section 102 BNS:

• Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy (1912): This case established the foundation of the transferred malice doctrine in Indian law. The court held that when an act intended to cause death results in the death of an unintended victim, the perpetrator is liable as if the intended victim had died.
   
• Ashok Saxena v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) : The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of transferred malice emphasizing that the intent to kill one person resulting in the death of another, does not mitigate the offense . The court upheld the conviction under the doctrine reinforcing its applicability in modern jurisprudence.
   
• State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram (2012): The court held that the doctrine of transferred malice applies when the act causing death was intentional or done with knowledge of likely death, even if the victim was not the intended target.
   
• Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (1964) : This case clarified that the doctrine applies only when the actus reus and mens rea align limiting its scope if the intent is non-lethal .
   
• Nanhe v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1972): The court emphasized that the focus must remain on the initial wrongful intent, not on the identity of the person harmed, reinforcing the doctrine's applicability .

These cases underscore the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principle that intent and knowledge are central to criminal liability regardless of the actual victim .

Section 102 BNS Legal Impact 

The codification of the transferred malice doctrine in Section 102 BNS has significant legal implications . By explicitly articulating this principle, the BNS provides clarity and consistency in its application reducing ambiguity and ensuring uniformity in judicial decisions . This codification reinforces the notion that individuals are accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their intentional or knowingly harmful actions even when those consequences affect unintended victims .

Moreover, Section 102 BNS punishment aligns with the severity of the intended offense ensuring that justice is not circumvented due to technicalities . This provision serves as a deterrent emphasizing that misdirected intent does not absolve one of liability . By maintaining the focus on the perpetrator's mental state and actions the BNS upholds the sanctity of human life and the principle of accountability strengthening the legal framework and enhancing public confidence in the justice system .

Conclusion 

Section 102 BNS represents a critical advancement in India's criminal law encapsulating the doctrine of transferred malice and ensuring that individuals are held accountable for the consequences of their intentional or knowingly harmful actions regardless of the actual victim . By codifying this principle, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 reinforces the importance of intent and knowledge in determining criminal liability providing clarity and consistency in its application .

This provision underscores the legal system's commitment to justice emphasizing that misdirected intent does not mitigate culpability . The judiciary's interpretation and application of Section 102 of BNS 2023 further affirm its significance in maintaining the integrity of criminal jurisprudence . As India continues to modernize its legal framework Section 102 BNS stands as a testament to the enduring principles of accountability and the sanctity of human life .