Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy (1912) is a landmark case for applying doctrine of transfer of malice in Indian criminal law. It illustrates how an accused can be held liable for murder even if the deceased was not the intended target, as long as the original intention to kill was present and the death resulted from the accused's actions. This case is significant in relation to the doctrine of Transfer of Malice. It establishes that if a person commits an act intending or knowing it is likely to cause death, and someone is killed as a result, the law treats it as if the person intended the actual outcome, even if the victim was not the intended target. The case of Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy clarifies the principle of causation and connection — the accused's action must be the direct or primary cause of the victim's death, in accordance with Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code. For a deeper understanding of important judicial decisions, explore Landmark Judgements

Download Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy Free PDF

Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy (1912) Introduction

The case of Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy (1912) 22 MLJ 333 is a significant decision in Indian criminal jurisprudence, particularly in the interpretation of Section 301 (IPC). This provision establishes the doctrine of transferred malice, which holds that when a person performs an act with the intention of causing death, and that act results in the death of another person (not the intended target), the offender is still liable for murder under Section 302 IPC. The central legal issue in Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy (1912) was whether criminal liability for murder attaches when the actual victim of a homicidal act differs from the intended one, due to the unintended consequence of a deliberate act. The majority of the bench held that intent to kill is not negated by the mistaken identity or accidental nature of the actual victim, and such liability is preserved through the operation of Section 301 IPC. This interpretation strengthens the objectivity of criminal liability in cases involving intentional acts that foreseeably lead to death.

The case at hand centres around the doctrine of transferred malice under Section 301 IPC. It involves the principle that intent to kill transfers when a deliberate act causes the death of a person other than the intended target. The following are the brief facts of the case of Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy (1912):

• Before the incident

The accused, Suryanarayana Murthy, took out large life insurance policies on Appala Narasimhulu without his knowledge and planned to murder Appala to claim the insurance payout.

• Day of the incident

At his brother-in-law’s house, the accused laced a sweetmeat (halva) with arsenic and mercury. He offered the poisoned sweet to Appala Narasimhulu, who ate part of it; she disliked the taste and threw away the remaining portion.

• Later that day

Rajalakshmi, aged 8 or 9 years, the accused’s niece, found the discarded halva and ate some of it. She also shared it with another small child.

There were two versions of how she got it:

• One claimed the accused gave it to her;
• The other (accepted by the court) said she picked it up herself after Appala threw it away.

• After the incident

Both children who ate the sweet died, with Rajalakshmi died four days later. Appala Narasimhulu became severely ill but survived.

• Legal proceedings

The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to transportation for life for the attempted murder of Appala. The case Emperor vs. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy came before the Madras High Court, raising the legal question of murder culpability for the unintended death of Rajalakshmi under Section 301 IPC.

Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy (1912) Legal Issues

Some of the prominent legal issues dealt in Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy (1912) are hereinafter mentioned: 

1. Can the accused be held guilty of murder when the person who died was not the intended victim?
2. Is the doctrine of transferred malice (Section 301 IPC) applicable in this case?
3. Did the accused's actions constitute a direct and proximate cause of the child’s death?
4. Does the intervening act of Appala discarding the sweetmeat break the chain of causation?

Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy (1912) is a cornerstone judgment that sets a landmark precedent for the doctrine of transferred malice, meanwhile it also deals with section 299 to 301 of IPC (corresponding section 100 to 102 BNS). The following are the analysis of the provisions involved in Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy:

• Section 299 IPC/ Section 100 BNS 

Section 299 (Now Section 100 BNS 2023) defines culpable homicide as causing death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death. The sources note that this section does not require the offender to intend to kill (or know they are likely to kill) a particular person; it's sufficient if death is caused to anyone by an act done with the intention of causing death to anyone.

• Section 300 (Murder)/ Section 101 BNS: 

Section 300 (Now Section 101 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) states that culpable homicide is murder if the act by which death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, among other specific conditions not relevant in the present case.

• Section 301 (Transferred Malice/Intention) / Section 102 BNS:

Section 301 (Now Section 102 BNS 2023) clarifies what happens when a person, by doing something they intend or know is likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of a person whose death they neither intend nor know is likely to cause. This section declares an important rule deducible from Sections 299 and 300, making it clear that culpable homicide can occur by causing the death of an unintended victim, and the type of that homicide (murder or not) depends on the intention/knowledge regarding the intended victim, not the actual victim.

Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy (1912) Judgment and Impact

Justice Benson in the majority opinion in Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy held that the accused, Suryanarayana Murthy, was guilty of Rajalakshmi's murder. He emphasized that under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it is not necessary for the intention or knowledge to be specifically directed toward the person who actually died. Instead, having the intention to cause death (in this case, of Appala Narasimhulu) is sufficient to establish criminal liability for the resulting death of another individual. 

He rejected the idea that the actions of Appala Narasimhulu (throwing away the sweet) or Rajalakshmi (picking and eating it) broke the chain of causation in Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy. He also clarified that the "efficient cause" of death was the accused’s act of poisoning the sweetmeat, making him responsible under criminal law. 

Whereas in his dissenting Opinion Sundara Aiyar J. in Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy stated that the actions of other persons such as Appala discarding the sweet and Rajalakshmi subsequently consuming it constituted independent interventions. He argued that these actions severed the direct causal link between the accused’s conduct and the girl’s death. 

Majority Opinion (Justices Benson and Abdur Rahim):

Justice Benson and Justice Abdur Rahim in Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy upheld the application of Section 301 IPC and emphasised that intent and outcome together established criminal liability. The following are the reasons:

• The Bench noted that the accused had a clear intent to kill Appala by administering poison. Even though Rajalakshmi was not the intended victim, Section 301 IPC makes it clear that if a person commits an act with the intent of causing death, and another person dies as a result of that act, it is still murder. The accused’s act of mixing poison into food and giving it to a person constituted a direct criminal act.
• The fact that Appala did not finish the sweetmeat and the child later found it did not sever the causal chain. Therefore, the death of Rajalakshmi was not accidental in the legal sense; it was a foreseeable consequence of the accused’s deliberate and malicious act.
• The Court in Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy found the accused guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to transportation for life (a common sentence at the time).

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Sundara Aiyar):

Justice Aiyar in his dissenting opinion, took a narrower view of causation and criminal intent. The reasons are as follows:

• Justice Aiyar in Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy gave a dissenting opinion by stating that the death of the deceased was too remote. He argued that the accused did not intend nor could he have reasonably foreseen that a child would find and eat the discarded sweetmeat.
• He held that the intervening act (discarding of the sweet and its consumption by the child) broke the chain of causation, and therefore Section 301 should not apply. In his view, while the accused might be liable for some form of criminal negligence, he could not be convicted for murder in this scenario.

In Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy (1912) with Justice Rahim agreeing with Justice Benson, the majority ruled that the accused was guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC. Thus, the Court in Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy set aside the earlier acquittal and sentenced the accused to transportation for life under Section 303 IPC, considering his previous sentence for attempted murder.

Conclusion

Emperor vs Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy (1912) is a landmark precedent for interpreting Section 301 IPC and the applicability of transferred malice in criminal law. This case clarifies that an accused cannot escape liability for murder merely because the victim was not the intended target. The decision in Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy emphasizes that where death results from a deliberately malicious act, criminal responsibility under Section 302 can be attached, even if the outcome is different from the intended plan.