https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301135 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. en-us Mon, 21 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:48:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301135 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 21 Sep 1964 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301135