Introduction

The doctrine of transfer of malice is a legal doctrine that can be used in the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) to prosecute an offender for offence against a person who was not the intended target of offender.

• Section 301 of the IPC deals with this doctrine of transfer of malice.

What is the Concept of Doctrine of Transfer of Malice?

• About:
  • The doctrine of transfer of malice or transmigration of malice is a legal principle that is applied in criminal law.
  • It involves the transfer of criminal intent or malice from the intended target to an unintended target.
• General Meaning:
  • In other words, if an individual has the intent to commit a crime against one person but, in the course of committing that crime, ends up harming another person unintentionally, the law may transfer the criminal intent or malice from the intended target to the unintended target.
• Purpose:
  • This ensures that the accused is held responsible for the consequences of their actions, even if those consequences were not initially intended.
• Illustration:
  • Z with the intention to murder A, fires a gun but misses the target and unintentionally murders B.
  • In this scenario, the Doctrine of Transfer of Malice may come into play, allowing the legal system to transfer Z’s the criminal intent of murdering A to the murder of B.
  • Z shall be held liable for the murder of B, even though that harm was not the intended target.

Which Legal Provisions Covers Doctrine of Transfer of Malice?

• Section 301 of IPC: Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended.—
  • If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause.

What are the Landmark Judgments of Doctrine of Transfer of Malice?

• R v. Mitchell (1983):
  • Appellant in this case was restricted by a man for jumping the queue in a post office. He hit and pushed the man resulting to which the man fell on the people standing behind him in queue. Because of this leg of an old lady in the queue broke and she died due to that broken leg.
  • The court applied doctrine of transfer of malice and appellant was convicted for manslaughter.
• Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy (1912):
  • In this case, appellant intended to kill a person named Appalla through poisoned rice, Appalla ate some, but the accused's relative's daughter Rajalakshmi ate the thrown-away sweetmeat and died.
  • The Madras High Court convicted the accused for murder of Rajalakshmi by transferring his malice.