This article has been written by Aditi Ananya from Chanakya National Law University

Table of Contents

Introduction

When someone intends to murder an individual, but does so in a way that kills someone else—someone he did not want to kill—but knows that person would die as a result of the conduct, the theory of transferred malice comes into play. The transmission of malevolent intent is referred to by this idea, which is also known as the notion of malice.

Or, to put it another way, the legal term “transferred malice” describes a circumstance in which someone plans to commit a crime against one person but instead injures another. The intended victim becomes the real victim in these situations, and the defendant’s purpose, or mens rea, is transferred.

In these situations, the law acknowledges that even though the victim ended up hurting someone else, the person’s purpose of hurting someone was still there. Therefore, the individual can be held legally liable for the injury done to the unintentional victim.

Consider the scenario when a person aims a gun at someone, strikes a bystander instead of the intended target, and misses. The law may still hold the person accountable for the injury done to the bystander even though he had no intention of hurting him. This is because the individual still had the intent to injure someone. In this instance, the defendant’s intention to kill that individual is transferred to the bystander, and manslaughter or murder charges may be brought against him.

When a person plans to carry out a less serious crime but ultimately commits a more serious one, transferred mens rea may also be applicable. For instance, if someone sets a building on fire with the intention of damaging property but instead harms people, the defendant’s original purpose to damage property is now associated with the harm done to people, and they may face more serious charges.

An interesting story of legal reasoning and thought is revealed by following the historical trajectory of transferred malice. Early common law legal systems had difficulty formulating a logical structure for situations in which a person’s malice was misguided. Judicial rulings and academic discussion gradually modified the idea as legal systems developed, laying the groundwork for its modern use.

Indian Penal Code

While there is no precise definition of “malice” in Indian criminal law or any other body of law, it is generally recognised to mean intentionally causing injury or acting with the intent to kill.

Although transferred malice is not defined explicitly in the IPC, it may be understood from Section 301 of the Act, which says that: “Culpable homicide by causing the death of somebody other than the person whose death was intended. When an individual intentionally causes the death of someone whose death he neither intends nor knows he is likely to cause, that individual has committed culpable homicide. This type of homicide would have occurred if the offender had actually caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew he was likely to cause.

According to the provision, culpable homicide occurs when an accused person intends to murder their intended victim and has both the necessary intention and knowledge that their actions will cause their intended victim’s death, even though they end up killing someone else.

Conditions

Therefore, in order to consider situations of transferred malice, the following conditions must be met: – The accused has caused the death of another individual.

– An act that was done with the aim to cause the same resulted in the death.

– The defendant inflicted such physical harm that was probably fatal.

– The person, the accused planned to kill was not the one who died as a result of his actions.

The primary goal of Section 301 is to guarantee that a defendant is not released from custody just because the court finds that they lacked the necessary intent to commit the crime and that their malice was transferred in order to convict them.

Section 301’s definition of transferred malice aims to clarify what constitutes culpable homicide.

If the perpetrator of culpable homicide intended to murder one person but ended up killing someone else instead. It’s also possible that he didn’t even intend to kill or that he was unaware that his actions would result in fatalities. In these situations, a court will find him guilty and will not accept nebulous defences like lack of purpose.

To put it another way, someone covered by Section 301 cannot be released simply for lack of intention. Instead, he will be found guilty under the “Doctrine of Transferred Malice.”

Example

Prominent Case Laws

Rex v. Saunders (1573) 2 Plowd 473 – In this case, the defendant tricked his wife into eating an apple that was contaminated with the deadly arsenic. The goal was to murder her so that he might be free to wed another lady when she passed away. However, his wife unknowingly fed the poisoned fruit to their daughter. After eating the fruit, the daughter perished. Once the “Doctrine of Transferred Malice” was applied, the defendant was charged with murder. His daughter died as a result of his transference of the desire to kill his wife.

R v. Pembleton (1874) LR 2CCR 119 – In this instance, the defendant intentionally struck someone with several stones that he tossed into the crowd. But for some reason, the stone struck the glass rather than the crowd. It was stated that he was guilty of hitting the window because his intention to hit in the crowd was transferred, according to the “Doctrine of Transferred Malice.”

The question of whether the defendant was guilty of causing criminal harm as well as whether the “Doctrine of Transfer Malice” may be applied in situations where the goal and the outcome are different were brought up.

The defendant was found not guilty of causing criminal damage, and it was also decided that the “Doctrine of Transfer Malice” could not be used in this case since the actual crime and the planned crime did not include the same physical act (actus reus).

R v. Latimer (1886) 17 QBD 359 – The defendant and another individual got into a fight at a tavern. Their fights got more intense. With the goal to strike the man, the defendant removed his belt, but he missed. He only succeeded in injuring the guy he was attempting to hit. An innocent woman standing by the man’s side was struck by the belt smash that was deflected in an unexpected direction. She suffered serious injuries after being struck in the face. The court determined that even though the defendant had no intention of hurting the victim, he would still be responsible for any injuries she sustained. The idea of transference of animosity was used in this instance. He intended to strike the guy, and that mens rea was transferred to the woman.

Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy (1912) 22 MLJR 333 (Mad.) – The accused, Suryanarayana Murthy, in this case, gave Appala Narsimhulu a piece of sweetmeat, or halva, combined with poison that included arsenic and mercury in soluble form, with the intention of killing him in order to obtain the substantial amount of money insured in his name. Appala tossed out the remaining halva after eating a bit of it. Appala was called to see Murthy’s brother-in-law, where the entire episode took place. Rajalakshmi, Murthy’s niece, who was between the ages of eight and nine, found and ate the remaining halva that had been thrown out. She then handed it to another child who also consumed it. Murthy was unaware of this occurrence. Although Appala recovered from the poisoning, the sweetmeat was the reason for the deaths of both children.

The accused would be found guilty of both the attempted murder of Appala and the offence under Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code, the court said. This relates to the children’s death.

He didn’t mean to murder them, yet he will still be held accountable for the sentence based on the theory of transference of malice.

For trying to commit murder, the court sentenced him to seven years of hard labour in jail; however, after he filed an appeal, the penalty was increased to life in prison by being sent to the colonies.

When someone intervenes in a conflict and stands to lose their life in the process, the theory of transferred malice is applicable. In the Gyanendra Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 502 case, B said during a meeting of the school committee that the accused’s father and uncle were dishonest and monopolised all positions of power. When the accused learned of this, he hurried to his residence and got a rifle; by then, the gathering was over. In order to shoot B, the accused motioned for others who were close to B to go aside. In an attempt to stop B from fleeing, the accused’s maternal uncle, hurried to get hold of him. The accused shoved him and opened fire, but the uncle got in the way of the pistol and was fatally wounded in the back. It was decided that, in accordance with sections 301 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, murder had been committed.

In Regina v. Mitchell (1983) QB 741, the appellant was trying to go forward in queue at a post office. An old guy objected to such behaviour. The appellant struck and shoved the elderly guy in response. The old guy stumbles and falls upon the folks behind him in the queue. An elderly woman who was standing in wait also collapsed and snapped her leg. Later on, the fractured leg claimed her life. Manslaughter was the verdict, according to the accused. In this case, the appellant was found guilty based on the transferred malice concept even though he had no intention of harming the elderly woman.

State of U.P. & Anr. v. Rajbir Singh (2006) 4 SCC 51 – In this instance, the appellant said that his brother’s house’s compound had been dumped with bricks by the neighbour. Because of this, there was an argument between his father and the defendant, but the locals managed to resolve the issue in some way. The accused and his two relatives showed up with firearms the following day. They approached the complainant’s store, where his father was waiting. There, the defendant urged or persuaded his family members to murder him. The complainant’s father was shot by the accused, who then caused injuries and collapsed. When a girl went into the store to buy some items, she was hurt and ended up falling. While travelling to the hospital, the two injured people passed away. In his defence, the accused claimed that they had no intention of killing the girl and that her death was an accident. She was passing by from that location when she got hurt and eventually passed away. The accused was found guilty by the Supreme Court, which overturned the High Court’s ruling. The charge against him was under Section 301 of IPC.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the legal notion of transferred mens rea pertains to situations in which a defendant plans to hurt one individual but instead injures another. It enables the offender to be held criminally accountable for the harm done to the real victim, shifting the defendant’s intent from the intended victim to the actual victim. Finally, the theory of transferred malice is evidence of the fluid character of criminal law. The way that intent and responsibility are conceptualised is changing along with legal systems. The theory of transferred malice, despite ongoing challenges and criticisms, continues to be an essential instrument for legal practitioners, helping to define the parameters of criminal responsibility in a constantly evolving legal environment.