Malice is a term with many meanings. Firstly, it is often used to mean spitefully or with ill will. Like other motives, malice in this sense is invariably irrelevant in the Law of Torts and, therefore, is not essential to the maintenance of an action for tort.
Bradford Corporation v. Pickles Mr. Pickles was annoyed at the Bradford Corporation’s refusal to purchase some land from him at the inflated price he demanded. In order to force their hand, he sank a shaft on his land, which interfered with water percolating from higher land belonging to the Corporation.

The corporation unsuccessfully sought an injunction to restrain him from polluting and diminishing their water. The House of Lords rejected the claim, Lord McNaughton remarking that “It is the act, not the motive for the act, that must be regarded. If the act, apart from motive, gives rise merely to damage without legal injury, the motive, however reprehensible it may be, will not supply that element.”
In this first sense, malice is occasionally relevant as a necessary element required to establish the defendant’s liability, e.g., to rebut the defense of qualified privilege in libel or slander.
Malice has a second meaning. In this legal sense, malice means the intentional commission of an act with an improper motive. This is much wider than the layman’s use of the word malice. Malice is usually used in this sense in the few contexts in which it is relevant in tort.

For instance, malice is defined as any motive other than merely starting a prosecution to bring a person to justice in the tort of malicious prosecution.
Sometimes malice is used in it archaic sense to mean simply an intentional performance of a tortuous act. It is in this sense that pleaders in libel and slander actions traditionally allege that the defendant “falsely and maliciously…” In fact, this means merely that the defendant’s publication of the defamatory matter was either intentional or negligent.
Malice in this sense would appear to be a confusing and unhelpful use of the word and, hence, should be avoided.

Malice in Fact and Malice in Law

It is of two kinds:’malice in fact’ (or express malice or actual malice) and’malice in law’ (or implied malice).

MALICE IN LAW

In the legal sense, malice means intentional wrongdoing. Any wrongful act done with intentions is known as malice in law. It doesn’t justify any act done with evil or improper motives. Still, it simply explains that “a wrongful act done internationally without justification or excuse .” it is the conduct done intentionally with any cause. We can also call it implied malice.

CASE LAWS

In Melia v. Neate, (1863) 3 F & F at p. 763, Baron Bramwell said that malice in law is a kind of “disinterested malevolence.” The idea of giving injury without just cause or excuse is malice in law

In shearer v. shields, 1914 A.C. 808, at 813,

Viscount Haldane described the law as “an individual who inflicts an injury to another individual in contravention of the law is not allowed to say that he did it with an innocent mind. He must act within the law, or he must have knowledge of the law. He will be guilty of the malice of law; although his state of mind is concerned so far, he acts innocently”.

MALICE IN FACT

In a wider sense, malice, in fact, means any wrongful conduct with an evil motive. When a defendant acts wrongful with the feeling of spite or ill-will, it is said to be done ‘maliciously.’

Motive means the eventual reason for the conduct. Motive is different from intention, which relates to wrongful conduct itself. For example, a person intends to commit theft, but the motive of the theft is to buy food or to help someone.

A wrongful act doesn’t become lawful just because the motive for the act was good. Similarly, a legal act doesn’t become wrongful because of an evil motive.

CASE LAWS

In Bromage v. prosser, 1825 4 B. and C. 247

Bayley, j. called malice, in fact, an ill will against any person, which was later called a vindictive feeling.

In Bradford corporation h. pickles, 1895 AC C. 587

The defendant excavated his own land, resulting in the water flowing in unknown channels from his lands to adjoining lands being discolored. It was done with the defendant’s motive to pressure the plaintiff to purchase the defendant’s land at a high price. In this case, the damage has been done by the defendant, and at the same time, he was making lawful use of land. Thus, it was held that the defendant was not liable.

DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED MALICE

The doctrine of transferred malice is not defined anywhere in the Indian Penal Code, but the essentials are given under Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code.

According to Section 301 of the Indian penal code,” if a person does any act which he knows or intends that is likely to cause death, he commits culpable homicide, and by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends to nor knows by himself that his act will cause the death of that person.”

Culpable homicide here means that the person had the intention and knowledge to kill someone, but instead, he killed someone else.

For instance, ‘A’ intends to kill ‘B’ but kills ‘D’ instead of ‘B .’Thus, he will be guilty of killing ‘D .’The doctrine of transferred malice is applied here.

EXCEPTION OF THE RULE

In some defamation cases, motive becomes relevant when qualified privilege is pleaded as a defense. This defense is available in the publications made in good faith. The presence of an evil motive negatives good faith, and the defendant can’t avoid his liability. Malice may result in aggravation of damages.

One of the elements that must be demonstrated by the plaintiff in torts of deceit, conspiracy, and malicious prosecution is on the defendant’s part. Causing personal discomfort by unlawful motive may turn a lawful act into a nuisance

CONCLUSION

In simple words, malice is wrongful conduct or wrongdoing done with a bad intention. One can’t save himself from his crime, which includes under section 301 of the Indian penal code. Transferring malice in the Indian penal code has punishments.