Indian criminal law | Updated 30 October 2026

IPC Section 301 and BNS Section 102: Culpable Homicide of an Unintended Victim

Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, addresses a death caused to someone other than the person the accused intended or knew was likely to die. Its corresponding provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is Section 102.

Current law: The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, generally applies to offences committed on or after 1 July 2024. Section 301 IPC remains relevant to earlier offences, subject to the applicable repeal, savings and transition provisions.

Section 301 IPC: Statutory text

301. 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.

Section 102 BNS: Corresponding current provision

Section 102 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, retains the same substantive rule as the former Section 301 IPC. It is titled Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended. The rule determines the legal character of the homicide when the actual victim differs from the intended victim.

Read the provision in the official BNS text published by the Bureau of Police Research and Development or the National Crime Records Bureau BNS section text.

Meaning of Section 301 IPC and Section 102 BNS

The provision reflects the doctrine commonly called transferred malice or transferred intention. Where an act is performed with the intention or knowledge relevant to causing one person's death, but instead causes the death of another, the law assesses the resulting culpable homicide as though the intended or contemplated person had died.

Essential ingredients

The accused performed an act with an intention to cause death, or with knowledge that death was likely.
The act actually caused the death of a person.
The person who died was not the person whose death the accused intended or knew to be likely.
The nature of the resulting homicide is determined by reference to the original intention or knowledge, together with the applicable law on murder and culpable homicide.

The provision does not automatically make every unintended death murder. Whether the offence amounts to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder depends on the proved facts and the relevant statutory requirements and exceptions.

Illustration: Intended victim and actual victim

A fires at B intending to kill B. The shot misses B and fatally strikes C, an unsuspected bystander. If the necessary elements are established, the fact that C rather than B died does not by itself reduce the character of the homicide. The offence is assessed as if the fatal shot had struck B.

Punishment and related provisions

Neither Section 301 IPC nor Section 102 BNS independently specifies a punishment. The applicable punishment depends on whether the homicide is legally classified as murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Subject	IPC provision	BNS provision
Culpable homicide: definition	Section 299	Section 100
Murder: definition and exceptions	Section 300	Section 101
Death of unintended victim	Section 301	Section 102
Punishment for murder	Section 302	Section 103
Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder	Section 304	Section 105

Under Section 103(1) BNS, murder is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and a fine. Section 105 BNS provides different punishment ranges for culpable homicide not amounting to murder depending on intention or knowledge. Bail and procedural classification must be considered under the applicable procedural law and the precise offence charged.

Section 301 IPC: Case-law references

The earlier webpage identified the following historical references. Their citations should be checked against authoritative law reports before use in pleadings or court submissions:

Shankarlal — the earlier citation appears as "AIR 2965 SC 1260" and is incomplete or erroneous; it is not reproduced as a verified citation.
Suryanaravana v. Emperor — 22 MLJ 333 (citation as supplied in the earlier article; verification required).
In re Narsing Naik — 1972 MIJ (Cr) 33 (citation as supplied in the earlier article; verification required).

Judicial interpretation of Section 301 IPC may remain relevant when interpreting the corresponding language in Section 102 BNS, subject to statutory context and subsequent decisions.

Official legislation and further reading

This article is general legal information. The law applicable to a particular incident depends on the date, evidence, charge and relevant statutory provisions.