Doctrine of Transfer of Malice
Doctrine of Transfer of Malice
1. Meaning
In criminal law, sometimes an accused intends to harm X but accidentally harms Y.
The law says: the intention (malice) is transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim.
The accused will be held liable as if he intended to harm Y.
👉 This prevents offenders from escaping liability just because their act missed the intended target.
2. Legal Basis in IPC
Though not expressly worded in IPC, it is recognized under:
Section 301 IPC – Culpable homicide by causing death of a person other than the intended.
General Principles of Criminal Liability – intention/knowledge is transferred.
3. Example
A aims a gun at B intending to kill him, but the bullet hits C and C dies.
A is guilty of killing C, as if he had intended to kill C.
His malice (mens rea) is transferred from B → C.
4. Scope
Applies in cases of:
Homicide (Sec. 301 IPC)
Bodily injuries (when harm intended to one but caused to another)
Property offences (sometimes intention to harm one property but harming another)
5. Case Laws
Indian Cases
State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram (2012)
Accused aimed to kill one person but another was killed.
Held: Doctrine of transferred malice applies; liability for murder exists.
Palani Goundan v. Emperor (AIR 1919 Mad 334)
Accused intended to kill wife, but by mistake killed his child.
Held: Intention transfers – guilty of murder.
Kashi Ram v. State of M.P. (2001)
Accused fired at one but killed another → liability upheld under Sec. 302 IPC.
English Cases
R v. Latimer (1886)
Accused aimed a belt at a man but accidentally hit a woman.
Held: Malice transferred; guilty of assault on woman.
R v. Mitchell (1983)
Accused punched a man in post office queue; he fell on an old lady who died.
Held: Intention transferred → convicted of manslaughter.
R v. Pembliton (1874) (Exception)
Accused threw stone at people but broke window.
Held: Malice not transferred to property damage (different type of offence).
6. Important Principles
Mens rea is transferred to unintended victim.
Actus reus must match mens rea → only transfers if same kind of offence.
Example: Intention to hurt a person cannot transfer to property offence (Pembliton case).
Applicable in homicide and bodily harm offences mainly.
7. Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Definition | Malice (intention/knowledge) against one person transfers to unintended victim |
| IPC Basis | Sec. 301 IPC |
| Scope | Homicide, bodily harm |
| Limitation | Must be same kind of offence (mens rea matches actus reus) |
| Key Indian Cases | Shera Ram (2012), Palani Goundan (1919) |
| Key English Cases | Latimer (1886), Mitchell (1983), Pembliton (1874 – exception) |
✅ In short:
The Doctrine of Transfer of Malice ensures that if A intends to kill/harm B but accidentally harms C, A is still liable as if he intended to harm C.
Mens rea (malice) transfers from intended victim → actual victim.
RELATED Blog
0 comments