In the IPC, A poisons food that B was to eat, intending to kill B. C e…

Question

In the IPC, A poisons food that B was to eat, intending to kill B. C eats the food instead and dies. Which best states A's liability under the principle of mens rea?

Accepted Answer

B. {'text': 'A is liable for the murder of C even though A intended to kill B', 'label': 'B'}

1. Intention in criminal law is not confined to the specific intention against a named victim.
2. The lesson explains that criminal intention "includes the generic intention as well".
3. The textbook illustration is exactly this fact pattern: A poisons food meant for B; C eats it and dies; **A is liable for killing C** even though A never intended to kill C.
4. The intent to kill any human is transferred to the actual victim.
_Source: ICSI CS Executive Paper 1 — Jurisprudence, Interpretation & General Laws, Lesson 9 (Indian Penal Code, 1860), pp. 205-224._

Answer

{'text': 'A is not liable because A never intended to kill C', 'label': 'A'}

Answer

{'text': 'A is liable only for an attempt as the named victim was not harmed', 'label': 'C'}

Answer

{'text': 'A is liable for culpable homicide because the death was accidental', 'label': 'D'}