Common intention in mistaken identity shooting sustains murder liability, while transferred malice does not apply.

Section 34 applied because the accused acted in furtherance of a common intention to kill the intended target, and the shooting of another person under a bona fide mistake of identity was treated as part of that shared criminal design. The Court held that liability for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 was therefore attracted. Section 301 did not apply, because that provision concerns transferred malice where the offender neither intends nor knows the likelihood of causing death to the actual victim; here, the accused intended to kill the person at whom they fired, although they were mistaken about identity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused who shot at a person under a mistaken identity were liable for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by application of Section 34, and whether Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code applied.

Analysis: Section 34 applies where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all. The common intention here was to kill the intended target, and the shooting of another person under a bona fide mistake of identity was held to be an act done in furtherance of that common intention. The situation was distinct from Section 301, which embodies the doctrine of transferred malice and applies where the offender neither intends nor knows the likelihood of causing death to the actual victim. Here, the accused intended to kill the person at whom they shot, though under a misapprehension as to identity, so Section 301 had no application.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld, and Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code was held inapplicable.

---