Question

Given facts: Country A requests the surrender of X for murder; Country B’s offence list doesn’t include an identical offence. Is extradition possible? (Discuss dual criminality and prima facie test.)

Hint:

Dual criminality is about the \textbf{conduct}, not the \textbf{name} of the offence. Prima facie test ensures the request is not frivolous or politically motivated.

Answer 1

Yes, extradition may still be possible even if Country B’s domestic statute does not list an \textit{identical} offence, as long as the conduct constitutes a crime in both countries.
This flows from the doctrine of dual criminality, which is central to extradition law under the Extradition Act, 1962, and international practice.
1. Dual Criminality – the core requirement
Dual criminality means:
The conduct for which extradition is requested must be an offence in both the requesting and requested States, though the name, definition, or classification of the offence need not be identical.
Thus:
- If the conduct = intentional killing of a human being,
- And murder / culpable homicide / homicide is a crime in both jurisdictions,
then dual criminality is satisfied.
The requesting country’s specific terminology (“murder”) does not matter. What matters is the substance of the conduct.
2. Prima Facie Evidence Test
Before extradition, the Magistrate in Country B must determine whether:
There exists prima facie evidence that X committed conduct that would amount to a criminal offence if committed in Country B.
Thus:
- If Country A produces evidence like motive, weapon recovery, witness statements, CCTV, etc.
- And such evidence, if committed in Country B, would constitute a homicide offence → extradition can proceed.
3. Conclusion
The absence of an identical statutory label (“murder” vs “homicide”) does not bar extradition. \[ \boxed{\text{Extradition is possible if dual criminality (conduct-based) and prima facie proof are satisfied.}} \]

Answer 2

The cleanest way through this fact pattern is to separate what the law requires from how it applies to X's case, rather than jumping straight to a conclusion.

The issue.
Country A wants X surrendered for murder. Country B's own statute book does not use the word murder or list an identical offence by that name. The question is whether that mismatch in labels defeats extradition.

The governing rule.
Extradition law, whether under India's Extradition Act, 1962 or general international practice, does not require the requesting and requested states to define the offence in identical words. It requires dual criminality: the underlying conduct must be punishable as a crime under the laws of both states, whatever name each state gives it. Alongside dual criminality, the requested state's court or magistrate must also be satisfied that there is prima facie evidence that the person committed conduct which would amount to an offence if committed within that state, much like the threshold used to commit a case for trial domestically.

Applying the rule to X.
Country A accuses X of intentionally killing another human being. Even if Country B's code does not use the label murder, conduct amounting to intentional killing is virtually certain to be criminalised there too, whether as murder, culpable homicide, or an equivalent offence. That satisfies dual criminality, because the comparison is conduct to conduct, not label to label. Separately, Country A must present evidence, such as eyewitness accounts, forensic material, or recovered weapons, sufficient to satisfy Country B's authorities that, if this conduct had occurred in Country B, it would disclose a triable criminal offence. If that evidentiary threshold is met, the second requirement is also satisfied.

The conclusion.
Neither requirement depends on Country B having a statute that mirrors Country A's wording. Extradition can go forward once the conduct is criminal in both states and the evidence clears the prima facie bar.

So the absence of an identically worded offence in Country B's law is not, by itself, a bar to extraditing X.

\[ \boxed{\text{Extradition is possible: dual criminality looks at conduct, not labels, and it is met here alongside a satisfied prima facie test.}} \]