Mens rea and Actus reus essential to constitute a crime
A crime is not committed against 1 person but against the whole society. A legal wrong that disturbs the peace, cause widespread fear and panic in the community.
Table of Contents
- Meaning of Offense
- Essential of any crime
- Meaning of Mens rea
- Sherras ys. De Ruizen
- Exceptions of Mens rea
- Inder sain vs state of Punjab
- Actus reus
- What is Section 82 of IPC
- What is Section 83 of IPC
- Ignorance of law is no excuse
- Cases where mens rea is not essential requisite
Meaning of Offense
Offence defined under Section 40 Indian penal code 1860 – offence has the same meaning when the thing punishable under the special or local law is punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term of six months or upwards, whether with or without fine.
To prove the commission of a crime the burden falls on the prosecution (State). The State’s responsibilities are to protect the citizens and provide justice to the victims and prevent the offender from committing more crimes.
Essential of any crime
Firstly, the crime must be committed by a human being and also includes:
- There must be mens rea while committing the offence
- Actus reus
- Injury must be there
Meaning of Mens rea
Mens rea is the ‘guilty mind’ or guilty intention to commit a crime, with the intention of causing hurt to another person, property, or intention of disturbing the peace. As mens rea is intuition it cannot be seen. It has been observed or perceived by the 3rd party, in the form of knowledge or negligence or malice or bad faith on the part of offender.
The general rule is that there can be no crime without guilty mind. This legal maxim “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea“-(The intent and act must both concur to constitute a crime). This principle developed because of the proposition-“Actus me invito factus non est mens actus“-(an act done by me against my will is not my act).
The leading English case on the aspect of the applicability mens rea
Sherras ys. De Ruizen Section 16(2) of the (English) Licensed act 1872. prohibited a licensed victualler from supplying liquor to a police constable while on duty. It was held that section did not apply where a licensed victualler bona fide believed that the police officer was off duty.
Exceptions of Mens rea
This case emphatically asserted that mens rea is an essential ingredient of every offence except in three cases
1) Cases not criminal in any real sense but which in the public interest are prohibited under a penalty.eg. Revenue Acts:
(2) Public Nuisance.
(3) Cases criminal in form but which are really only a summary mode of enforcing a civil right.
Mens rea in itself is not punishable as it is uncertain that the person shopping for poison is for rats or for some human. Mens rea always comes with its other half Actus reus which is guilty act. Guilty mind is very hard to prove. But Actus Reus, which is a necessity to prove by the state that a criminal act was committed by accused towards the victim a fellow human or state itself. When dealing with any crime, the accused is given the benefit of the doubt because the accused cannot be pressurized to confess or incriminate itself. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accuse, beyond a reasonable doubt. Defence provides the judge, a reasonable doubt since the principles of natural justice dictate that a person must not be convicted of the charge is not proved beyond the reasonable doubt that the accused is the only person who has committed the offence with a guilty mind.
Mens rea plays an important part in deciding whether the act of accuse is culpable or not. There has to be specific intent of the accused to commit the crime of which he is charged. The state must prove that the accused knowingly committed the crime, and had full knowledge of his actions and had malafide intent towards the victim or accuse negligence towards law meant injury to someone. Mens rea which can be found in civil suits, but the Actus Reus takes precedence in cases of civil liability.
Further, an Act might be voluntary or involuntary, but the guilt is determined by the facts of the case which can differ from case to case. If a person drives while he is intoxicated and due to that harm is caused to others, he is guilty as it was a voluntary act to consume alcohol before driving, even though the crime itself was unintentional, it shows that he ignored the law and this unintentional act having mens rea in form of the negligence of law leads to offence. However, if someone tricked you to drink some alcohol and while driving and you involuntarily cause harm to others, you are not liable and is not guilty of the crime.
State of Maharashtra vs M.H.George
On 24th Nov. 1962, RBI placed some restrictions on the entry of gold into India, thus superseding its earlier notification (gold can be brought into India if it was on transit to a place outside India), by providing that gold can be brought into India on a transit provided that such gold was declared in the “manifest” for transit in the same bottom cargo. The accused left Zurich by plane on Nov. 27, 1962, and reached Bombay (on the way to Manila), where customs officers recovered the gold from his jacket. The plea of the accused was that he had no mens rea and that he had no knowledge of the RBI notification. Court held if bringing gold in India was a conscious act and the bringing of gold constitute offence, as the mistake of law will be punished.
Inder sain vs state of Punjab
Accuse got parcel of apples from railways, police intercepted it and found opium in it along with apple. He was held guilty.
Actus reus
Prof. Jerome Hall- Actus reus is something in addition to mens rea which is required to produce criminal harm i.e. some overt act/ illegal omission must take place in pursuance of guilty intention.
Prof. Kenny was the first to use the term “actus reus”. According to him, it is such result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent.
Prof. Russel called it a physical element of a crime.
Glanville Williams says that in actus reus we include all external circumstances and consequences specified in rules of law as constituting a forbidden situation
Actus Reus the act which is wrong which done to someone. The accused intentionally done any act or intentionally omitted, resulting in harm to the body, property or, reputation of some person. Without a guilty act, there can be no crime. An act alone does not constitute a crime, however, intention and the act, if such act is prohibited, combined to form a crime.
Example A person intentionally omits to feed the infant which caused the death of that child. The person can be charged with death by negligence, or murder if his act can be portrayed as the person intended to commit murder of her infant that’s why he omitted to give food to the child.
What is Section 82 of IPC In Indian penal code 1860 Section 82 states any child below the age of 7 years old cannot be held guilty for any offence.
What is Section 83 of IPC Child aged between 7 years old to 12 years old can be prosecuted for any offence If the child can form the mental capacity to harm someone and knows the consequences of his action which can cause hurt to another person. Children below the age of eighteen cannot be tried as adults and can only be sentenced to a maximum of three years under the juvenile justice act 2015.
Ignorantia juris non excusat – Ignorance of law is no excuse Where a person sells a substance, having no knowledge that the sale of that substance is illegal, he is still liable for the offence. Either accuses act consists mens rea or not if the act of accuse constitute offence and the act is done while ignoring the law then no amount of good faith is going to help the accused.
In certain cases, an illegal act may have been committed, but by mistake of fact, the accused may be excused. Ignorantia facti excusat – Ignorance of fact is an excuse. Mistakes of Law cannot be excused but the mistake of facts can be excused.
Example A person mistook someone else umbrella as his own and went home with it but after sometime he realizes that it is not his, he put it back. Here he is not liable for any offence (theft) as he is not aware of the fact that it was not his property, therefore ignorance of fact can be excused.
Strict liability i.e. Cases where mens rea is not an essential requisite
1) Socio-economic offences for e.g.; Food Adulteration Act, Drugs Act, Weights and Measures are in terms of the absolute prohibition.
(2) Statutory offences like War against the State (Sec. 121), Sedition (Sec. 124A), Counterfeiting of coins (Sec 232), Rape (Sec.376)
(3) Public Nuisance, Libel, Contempt of Court.
(4) Offences where the proceedings are criminal in nature but it is really a mode of enforcing a civil right example- Traffic regulation etc.