Application of Mens rea

8/10/2019 Application of Mens rea

1/7

A Project Report on Application of Mens rea under IPC:

Interpretation of Supreme Court in past decade.

CRIMINAL LAW-I

Submitted by:-

Aaditya Vasu

2013001

SEMESTER 3rd

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISAKHAPATNAM


2/7

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Writing a project is one of the most significant academic challenges I have ever faced. Though

this project has been presented by me but there are many people who remained in veil, who gave

their all support and helped me to complete this project.

First of all I am very grateful to my subject teacher Dr. Nandini Murthy CP Maam,without the

kind support of whom and help the completion of the project was a herculean task for me. She

donated her valuable time from her busy schedule to help me to complete this project and

suggested me from where and how to collect data.

I am very thankful to the librarian who provided me several books on this topic which proved

beneficial in completing this project.

I acknowledge my friends who gave their valuable and meticulous advice which was very useful

and could not be ignored in writing the project. I also owe special thanks to my parents for their

selfless help which was very useful in preparing the project & without whose support this project

wouldnt have been prepared.

Aaditya Vasu

2013001

3rd

Semester


3/7

INTRODUCTION

The term actus reus, the Latin term for a guilty act, is one of the two necessary elements

for prosecution of most crimes in English law; the other being mens rea. Therefore, in the

present article, the meaning of ''mens rea'' is highlighted as to understand the liability for action

and inaction in Indian Criminal Law.

As a general rule, unless a person has committed the necessary ''actus reus'', he cannot be found

guilty; nevertheless there are some exceptions. Now, it is apt to see that mens rea, in Anglo-

American law, criminal intent or evil mind. In general, the definition of a criminal offense

involves not only an act or omission and its consequences but also the accompanying mental

state of the actor

The concept of mens rea developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era

(about the year 1600) when judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal

liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind.

Today most crimes, including common-law crimes, are defined by statutes that usually contain a

word or phrase indicating the mens rea requirement. A typical statute, for example, may require

that a person act knowingly, purposely, or recklessly.

Crimes involving mens rea are of two types, (i) crimes of basic intent and (ii) crimes of specific

intent. In the former clause of crimes, the mens rea does not go beyond the actus reus. In the

second, it goes beyond the contemplation of prohibited act and foresight of its consequence has a

purposive element.; (At para 62), As stated by Williams : What does legal mens rea means? It

refers to the mental element necessary for the particular crime, and this mental element may be

either intention to do immediate act or bringing about the consequence or (in some crimes)

recklessness as to such act or consequence. In a different and more precise language, the mens

rea means intention or recklessness as to the element constituting actus reus. These two concepts,

intention and recklessness, hold a key to the understanding of large part of criminal law, some

crimes require intention and nothing else will do, but some can be committed either intentionally

or recklessly. Some crimes require particular kind of intention or knowledge [Williams on

Criminal Law (General/part page 30)]. Referring to the elements of mens rea, Glanville Williams

states: the mere commission of a criminal act (or bringing about the state of affairs that the law
http://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_is_mens_reahttp://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_is_mens_reahttp://law.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_is_mens_rea


4/7

provides against) is not enough to constitute a crime, at any rate in the case of more serious

crime. This generally require, in addition, some element of wrongful intent or other fault.

MENS REA UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

There is a latin maxim Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit reawhich means There can be no

crime without a guilty mind, and according to law there are two components of Crime, which are

As the project title Application of Mens rea under IPC, so according to the Indian Penal Code ,

1860 there is no any such mention of this word Mens rea anywhere in the code but we can say

the doctrine is incorporated in two ways as we can say that the interpretation of Mens rea is

included in the definition of the offence through the terms like dishonestly, fraudently,

voluntarily, intentionally,knowingly. These concepts are included in the General exceptions

in chapter IV. When the definition does not include mens rea, it means that the liability is strict.

It is one of the principles of the English criminal law that to constitute guilt there must be a

guilty intent along with the act itself and that a crime is not committed if the mind of the person

doing the act in question be innocent. The maxim governing the above proposition is actus non

facit reum, nisi mens sit rea, i.e., the act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty

intent.

There must be an intention to do some act before a person can be guilty of crime. In the words of

Lord Kenyon the intent and act must both concur to constitute a crime. Thus mens reain the

case of murder means malice aforethought; in the case of theft an intention to seal and in the case

of receiving stolen goods knowledge that the goods were stolen.

The maxim, therefore, connotes that the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention

was to commit a crime. You shoot a jackal but actually killed a man behind a bush who was

concealed from your view.

No offence has been committed if you were not negligent and the act will be excusable as an

accident. You are working with a hatchet and the head flies, off, killing a man who is standing

by.


5/7

There is no offence if you have taken proper precaution and the act is excusable as an accident.

But if you kill a man under circumstances which afford you no legal justification, you are guilty

of murder.

The maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is rooted in the antiquity of English legal

history. The requirement of a guilty state of mind at least for the moreserious crimes had come

to be developed even by the time of Sir Edward Coke. In his Institutes, Coke categorically states

the law as follows:

If one shoot at any wild fowl upon a tree, and the arrow killed any reasonable creature after off,

without any evil intent in him, this is per infortunium.1

Concept of Mens rea under Criminal law.

The essence of criminal law has been said to lie in the maxim- "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit

rea." Bishop writes2: ' "There can be no crime large or small, without an evil mind. It is therefore

a principle of our legal system, as probably it is of every other, that the essence of an offense is

the wrongful intent, without which it cannot exist." This examination of the mental element or

mens rea requisite for crime, will be restricted with reference to the use of the term itself in so far

as it signifies the mental element necessary to convict for any crime, and only regarding crimes

not based upon negligence.

A possible division for such consideration is the following:

1.Requisite mens rea in the early law.

2.Beginnings of the mens rea concept.

3. Subsequent development of a general mens rea as necessary for crime.

4. Application of the general concept to some individual crimes,

5.Application of the general concept regarding some specific defenses.

6. Some general present day applications of the term.

1Homicide per Infortunium, or by misadventure, is said to take place when a man in doing a lawful act,

without any intent to hurt, unfortunately kills another.2Criminal law, 9

thEdition. (1930) 287.


6/7

Most of the records agree that early criminal law developed from the blood feud and rested upon

the desire for vengeance. It is worthy of note that the criminal law concerned itself with those

injuries which were highly provocative and the most injurious of these are the intentional ones.

Justice Holmes wrote:3 "Vengeance imports a feeling of blame and an opinion, however

distorted by passion, that a wrong has been done. It can hardly go very far beyond the case of a

harm intentionally inflicted; even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being

kicked. The early English appeals for personal violence seem to have been confined to

intentional wrongs." It must be borne in mind that the cumbersome early forms of trial precluded

the drawing of fine distinctions based upon factors not apparent to all. Deep-seated injuries are

the essence of blood feuds; the nice considerations of the mental factors prompting the inquiry

do not constitute the feuds. Sayre writes:4"In trial by battle the issues must be framed in the

large; if the defendant cannot readily satisfy the judges that he is above suspicion, he may be

ordered to settle the dispute by his body, and there is an end of the matter." It must also be noted

that in these early developments there was no distinction between tort and crime. It might be said

that the early English law grew from a point bordering on absolute liability.

3The Common Law, 3

4Mens rea, Harvard Law Review, 45:976.


7/7

36

Application of Mens rea

Documents

Transcript of Application of Mens rea