BNS Section 102: Culpable Homicide Causing Death of a Person Other Than the One Intended (IPC 301 Mapping) (2026)

Explainer · Criminal Law · BNS

Updated for 2026 · Claw Editorial

Section 102 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with the situation where a person aims to kill one person but kills another. It carries forward the transfer of malice rule: if the act would have been culpable homicide had the intended person died, it is culpable homicide even though a different person died. The BNS has been in force since 1 July 2024. Section 102 replaced Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). If you still look up "section 301 IPC", this is the provision you now need. This explainer sets out what Section 102 covers, how it works with an example, how it maps to the old law, and how it is punished. Last verified October 2026.

01Why the section number changed

For generations, the transfer of malice rule in homicide sat in Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code. Since 1 July 2024 the IPC is replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the rule now sits in Section 102 of the BNS.

This matters in daily practice. A charge for an offence committed on or after 1 July 2024 is framed under the BNS, so it cites Section 102, not Section 301. An older matter keeps its IPC number, because the law that applies is the law on the date of the offence. For some years both numbers will appear in live cases.

02What Section 102 covers

Section 102 covers culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other than the person whose death was intended. If a person, by doing something that he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person whose death he neither intended nor knew himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed is of the kind it would have been had the death of the intended person been caused.

In plain terms, the intent follows the act. The law does not let an accused escape because he killed the wrong person. His guilt is measured as if he had killed the person he meant to kill.

03How transfer of malice works

The rule has a simple structure:

• The accused does an act intending to cause death, or knowing it is likely to cause death, aimed at a particular person (person A).
• The act in fact causes the death of a different person (person B), whose death the accused neither intended nor knew to be likely.
• The offence is treated as the culpable homicide it would have been had person A died. So the mental element directed at person A is read as if it applied to the death of person B.

Under Section 102, the intent follows the act. Killing the wrong person is no defence.

Example: a person fires at A meaning to kill him, but the shot misses A and kills B who was standing nearby. The person is guilty of culpable homicide, and whether it is murder depends on whether the act aimed at A would have been murder. The death of B is treated as if it were the death of A.

04Old to new: IPC 301 to BNS 102

Section 301 of the IPC is now Section 102 of the BNS. The rule is carried over without change in substance.

Because the rule is carried over, case law under Section 301 still guides how Section 102 is read.

05How it is punished

Section 102 does not set a separate punishment. It is a rule that classifies the offence. The actual punishment comes from the section that fits the culpable homicide, once Section 102 has told us what kind of culpable homicide it is.

• If the act aimed at the intended person would have been murder, the accused is punished for murder under the murder provisions, which is Section 103 of the BNS.
• If the act would have been culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the accused is punished under the corresponding provision, Section 105 of the BNS.

So the classification of the case, whether cognizable, bailable, and the trial court, follows the underlying offence of culpable homicide or murder, not Section 102 on its own.

06A note on the common search for this number

The BNS renumbered the criminal law heavily, so you cannot assume a new section carries the old subject that sat at the same position in the IPC. Section 102 is a clear example. It is a homicide rule, not a child offence.

Always read the bare text of the section before you draft a charge or an application. A single wrong number can derail a bail hearing or a framing of charge.

07Where Claw fits

Claw is an all-in-one legaltech platform for Indian advocates, law firms, and corporate legal teams, combining AI-based case search, an AI legal assistant (Legal GPT), case management, and compliance automation across all Indian courts and tribunals.

A transfer of malice argument lives or dies on fine facts and on how earlier benches applied the old Section 301 and now Section 102, so you want both the case law and the live orders at hand. Claw searches more than 30 crore judgments, the Supreme Court from 1950 and the High Courts from 1990, and returns a relevant holding in under five seconds; it also follows a running matter, each order and hearing, across 9,102 courts, benches and forums, by party or advocate name. A related homicide provision, the punishment for murder by a life-convict, is covered by Section 104 of the BNS.

Claw does not use customer case documents to train its AI models. Open a free Claw account to research the transfer of malice rule and follow such cases by party or advocate name. To search the wider body of law, see case search across Indian courts.

08Sources and further reading

• India Code (official text of the BNS, 2023): indiacode.nic.in
• PRS Legislative Research (BNS overview and IPC comparison): prsindia.org
• Section 102, BNS (bare text): devgan.in
• Claw: clawlaw.in

This explainer is general information, not legal advice. The law changes through amendments and judgments, so check the current text and take advice from counsel before you act.

09Frequently asked questions