If the wrong person dies by mistake, the attacker is only guilty of a lesser crime like negligence or accident.

Courts have held that the attacker's original intention or knowledge is what matters — the crime is judged as if the intended victim had died, not treated as a lesser offence.

This provision requires the accused to have specifically thought about the actual victim.

The provision explicitly says the accused 'neither intends nor knows himself to be likely' to cause that particular person's death — the focus is on intent toward the original target, not the actual victim.

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Section 102

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

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.§

Why this exists

This rule carries forward the principle from Section 301 of the old Indian Penal Code, 1860, into the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It reflects the common-law doctrine of 'transferred malice' — the idea that a wrongdoer's intent to kill does not evaporate just because fate or bad aim caused a different, unintended victim to die. The law's purpose is to prevent a person from escaping serious liability merely because their murderous act missed its intended target and struck someone else instead.

How courts read it

Under the identical predecessor provision, Section 301 IPC, Indian courts consistently held that the accused's guilt is measured by their intention or knowledge regarding the intended victim, not by who actually died. Courts have applied this in cases involving stray bullets, poisoned food meant for one person eaten by another, and blows aimed at one person that struck a bystander, holding the accused liable for culpable homicide (or murder, depending on the mental state) of the same degree as if the intended victim had died.

Common misconceptions

Myth: If the wrong person dies by mistake, the attacker is only guilty of a lesser crime like negligence or accident.
Fact: Courts have held that the attacker's original intention or knowledge is what matters — the crime is judged as if the intended victim had died, not treated as a lesser offence.
Myth: This provision requires the accused to have specifically thought about the actual victim.
Fact: The provision explicitly says the accused 'neither intends nor knows himself to be likely' to cause that particular person's death — the focus is on intent toward the original target, not the actual victim.