CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RELEVANCE OF MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS IN

IMPOSING A CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Submitted to Dr. Father Peter Ladis F
Faculty Of Criminal Law

Shubham Mishra
Roll- 1649
2016-2021
3rd Semester
0
 [1]

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I am feeling highly elated to work on under the guidance of my Contracts law II faculty. I am
very grateful to him for the exemplary guidance. I would like to enlighten my readers regarding
this topic and I hope I have tried my best to bring more luminosity to this topic.

I also want to thank all of my friends, without whose cooperation this project was not
possible. Apart from all these, I want to give special thanks to the librarian of my university
who made every relevant materials regarding to my topic available to me at the time of my
busy research work and gave me assistance.
 [2]

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The method used for research is the doctrinal method and involves research in the library and on
the internet.

Areas of limitations- data of the research study will have its limitations due to the lack of
sufficient financial resources and limited time allotted for the research

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

• To study the principles of criminal liability: Mens rea and actus reus.
• To study the importance of mens rea and actus reus in constituting a crime.

HYPOTHESIS

• Mens rea is an essential element in constituting a criminal act.

• There are some exception to this principle where only actus reus imposes criminal
liability on an individual.

SOURCES OF DATA
• The researcher focusses on obtaining information from both the available sources; they
are (1) primary sources of data, (2) secondary sources of data.

• Primary sources of data include first-hand information available, like case laws, journals,
district plan goals, etc. and secondary sources include magazines, journals, etc.
 [3]

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4
CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND ITS PRICIPLE ............................................................................. 5
Mens Rea: Mental Element in Criminal Liability....................................................................... 5
Difference between Motive and Mens rea .............................................................................. 6
Actus reus: Guilty act in criminal liability.................................................................................. 7
Examples of Actus Reus ......................................................................................................... 8
Lack of Intent or Physical Act ................................................................................................ 8
ROLE OF MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS IN IMPOSING CRIMINAL LIABILITY ........... 10
Strict liability: Exception to the general rule. ........................................................................... 12
Difference between the Strict Liability in India with respect to the principle of it evolved in
the Rylands v. Fletcher ......................................................................................................... 15
CULPABILITY OF MENS REA & ACTUS REUS:JUDICIAL OVERVIEW .......................... 16
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 18
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 21
 [4]

INTRODUCTION
Criminal law classically describes offences as being composed of two elements: the mens rea and
the actus reus. The mens rea is the guilty mind and the actus reus is the guilty act. The words come
from a Latin maxim that holds there to be no punishable act that is not the result of a guilty mind.
It is not a crime merely to think guilty thoughts. Guilty thoughts must be linked to an act. An act
that is not the result of a guilty mind is not a crime. Criminal justice systems occasionally recognize
offences that may be committed in the absence of a guilty mind. There are basic principles
underlying the prosecution of a crime. A crime is composed of elements. These elements include
a mental state, prohibited action and lack of legal justification. Each of these elements must be
proven by the government beyond a reasonable doubt. If any element is not proven, the person
charged must be found not guilty.

Mens rea and actus reus must exist simultaneously. Thinking about committing a crime without
doing so cannot be punished. Doing a prohibited act without having criminal intent is not criminal.
The action and intent must take place together. The existence of a concurrence of mens rea and
actus reus is decided by the fact finder, either a judge or a jury. This is done by presentation of
evidence, either direct or circumstantial.

In the earliest time it was the fundamental presumption that a man in every case intended to do
what he has done. The English criminal law began with strict criminal liability, and there was no
clear distinction between the crime Therefore the mental attitude of a person was an irrelevant
consideration in so far as trial and punishment was concerned. But later on bodily punishment
came as a substitute of the payment of damage then the importance of mens rea or the mental
attitude of a person, at the time of commission of crime was realized. With the passage of time
requirement of mens rea as an essential element of a crime has firmly taken in its roots.1

The burden of prosecution of a crime falls on the State, and the burden of proof falls on the
prosecution. The State acts to protect the victims of the crime and to prevent the offender from
committing more crimes and acts to provide justice to the victims. The State also takes measures
to punish the offender and most countries have reformation programs in prison in an attempt to
steer the offenders towards becoming law-abiding, dutiful citizens. An animal cannot commit a
crime; hence, an essential of any crime is that it must be committed by a human being. However,
crimes can be committed against animals and are punishable by law.

In this project we will analyze as to how mens rea and actus reus are important principles of
criminal liability and what are their role in imposing criminal liability.

We will also study different cases related to the actus reus and mens rea in the chapter of judicial
overview, As of now lets start with criminal liability and its principle:-

1
www.lawteacher.net
 [5]

CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND ITS PRICIPLE

The liability that arises out of breaking law or committing a criminal act is Criminal Liability.
Each element of a crime that the prosecutor needs to prove is a principle of criminal liability.
There are basic principles underlying the prosecution of a crime. A crime is composed of elements.
These elements include a mental state, prohibited action and lack of legal justification. Each of
these elements must be proven by the government beyond a reasonable doubt. If any element is
not proven, the person charged must be found not guilty.

In Indian Penal Code, the term “crime” is not defined anywhere but it is not even necessary because
section 40 of Indian penal code defines “offence” which says that word “offence” denotes a thing
punishable under Indian Penal Code, or under any special or local law as hereinafter defined.

The general basis for imposing liability in criminal law is that the defendant must be proved to
have committed a guilty act whilst having had a guilty state of mind. The physical elements are
collectively called as Actus reus. And the accompanied mental state is called the Mens rea. In order
to commit a crime an actor must possess both Mens rea and Actus reus. That is, an act is not guilty
unless the mental state by which it was commissioned is also guilty. The crime is the combination
of both, and is a single unity.2

Mens Rea: Mental Element in Criminal Liability

Mens rea is a legal phrase used to describe the mental state a person must have been in while
committing a crime for it to be intentional. It can refer to a general intent to break the law or a
specific, premeditated plan to commit a particular offense. To convict an accused person of a
wrong doing, a criminal prosecutor must show beyond any reasonable doubt that the suspect
actively and knowingly participated in a crime that harmed another person or their property.

To put it simply, Mens rea determines whether someone committed a criminal deed purposefully
or accidentally. This idea commonly applies to murder cases. The person’s Mens rea, or mental
state at the time of the killing, is an essential factor in whether they will be declared guilty or
innocent. In order to receive a conviction, the lawyer must prove that the accused party had some
intention or willingness to end the life of another person. On the other hand, if evidence shows the
death to be accidental and unavoidable, the suspect must be declared innocent and set free.

The law did not always require Mens rea for liability. Early Germanic tribes, it is suggested,
imposed liability upon the causing of an injury, without regard to culpability. But this was during
a period before tort law and criminal law divided. It seems likely that as the distinction between
tort and crime appeared that is, as the function of compensating victims became distinguished from
the function of imposing punishment, the requirement of Mens rea took on increasing importance.

2
http://lex-warrier.in
 [6]

The early stages of its development are illustrated by the decision in Regina v. Prince

The defendant took an underage girl out of the possession of her father, reasonably believing she
was over the age of consent. That the defendant's conduct was generally immoral was sufficient
for Lord Bramwell to find that the defendant had the Mens rea necessary for criminal liability.
Lord Brett, on the other hand, would require that Prince at least have intended to do something
that was criminal, not just immoral.3

A somewhat more demanding requirement is expressed in Regina v. Faulkner

In the process of stealing rum from the hold of a ship, a sailor named Faulkner accidentally set the
ship afire, destroying it. Building upon Lord Brett's conception of a more specific and demanding
Mens rea, Lords Fitzgerald and Palles conclude that the Mens ma requirement means that Faulkner
must have at least intended to do something criminal that might reasonably have been expected to
have led to the actual harm for which he is charged. Thus, Faulkner ought not be liable for the
offense of burning a ship when he intended only to steal rum from it: such conduct, in the normal
course of things, does not lead one to reasonably foresee that a ship will be destroyed.

This last shift in the notion of Mens rea marks not only a dramatic increase in the demand of the
requirement, but also a significant qualitative change. No longer does there exist a single Mens rea
requirement for all offenses the intention to do something immoral or later, something criminal.
Now each offense has a different Mens rea requirement, the Mens rea required for the offense of
burning a ship is different from the Mens rea required for the offense of theft. Liability now
requires that a person intend to do something that might reasonably be expected to lead to the harm
of the particular offense charged.

Now it is the combination of act ( actus rea) and intent mens rea which makes a crime. And the
maxim – Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea means act alone does not make a man guilty unless
his intentions were so. It is a well known principle of natural justice. There can be no crime large
or small without any evil intent. The responsibility in crimes must depend on the doing of a willed
or voluntary act and a particular intent behind that act. Most conscious and voluntary acts are
directed towards result or consequence. When one acts to produce a particular consequence he is
said to do that act with that intention.

Difference between Motive and Mens rea

Mens rea, or "guilty" intent, deals with what the defendant needs to have been thinking at the time
he or she committed the actus reus for criminal liability to attach. In order to be guilty of most
crimes, the defendant must have had the mens rea required for the crime he was committing at the
time he committed the criminal act. As with the actus reus, there is no single mens rea that is
required for all crimes. Rather, it will be different for each specific crime.

3
Indian Penal Code by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal
 [7]

1. Mens rea is not the same thing as motive. The mens rea refers to the intent with which the
defendant acted when committing his criminal act. On the other hand, the motive refers to
the reason that the defendant committed his criminal act. Fred and Wilma have been
married for twenty years. Recently, Fred has begun to suspect that Wilma is having an
affair with Barney. Enraged that his wife might be cheating on him, Fred buys a gun and
shoots Wilma to death. In this case, Fred’s criminal act was shooting the gun at Wilma,
and his mens rea, his intent, was to kill her. The motive was because he was angry that she
might be having an affair.
2. Fred and Wilma have been married for fifty years. Recently, Wilma has been diagnosed
with terminal cancer, and while she has no chance of surviving the cancer, she will live out
the rest of her days in terrible pain. One day, tired of being in pain, Wilma begs Fred to put
her out of her misery. Fred loves Wilma and will do anything for her. So, he gets a gun,
says his goodbye, and shoots her. In this case, Fred’s criminal act was shooting the gun at
Wilma. His mens rea was to kill her. His motive was to put her out of her misery. Note that
even though Fred’s motive here was a “good” one, he can nevertheless be convicted of a
homicide.

Actus reus: Guilty act in criminal liability

Actus reus is the Latin term used to describe a criminal act. To establish Actus reus, a lawyer must
prove that the: accused party was responsible for a deed prohibited by criminal law. Actus reus is
commonly defined as a criminal act that was the result of voluntary bodily movement. This
describes a physical activity that harms another person or damages property. Anything from a
physical assault or murder to the destruction of public property would quality as an Actus reus.

Omission. as an act of criminal negligence, is another form of Actus reus. It lies on the opposite
side of the spectrum from assault or murder and involves not taking an action that would have
prevented injury to another person. An omission could be failing to warn others that you've created
a dangerous situation. not feeding an infant who has been left in your care, or not completing a
work-related task properly which resulted in an accident. In all of these cases, the perpetrator's
failure to complete a necessary activity caused harm to others. The exception to Actus reus is when
the criminal actions are involuntary. This includes acts that occur as a result of a spasm or
convulsion, any movement made while a person is asleep or unconscious, or activities participated
in while an individual is under a hypnotic trance. In these scenarios, a criminal deed may be done,
but it is not intentional and the responsible person will not even know about it until after the fact.

Actus reus, or criminal action, is the essential physical element of criminal liability, while mens
rea functions as the essential mental element. Actus reus ("culpable action" in Latin) is required to
 [8]

determine whether a crime has been committed, while mens rea ("guilty mind" in Latin) is
considered in determining the severity of the criminal offense.4

Actus reus must be present for a criminal conviction to exist in the Anglo-American criminal law
system. Without criminal action, there can be no crime. The fundamental idea behind this is that
it is wrong to punish people for their thoughts alone. Until a criminal action occurs there is no way
to determine or measure the severity of a person's criminal thoughts, and it can easily be argued
that criminal thoughts in and of themselves cause no harm to society. Besides, if our thoughts were
the only requirement needed for criminal liability, we'd probably all have been to prison by now
at least a few times.

Having said this, it's important to add that the definition of "criminal action" can be very subtle.
For example, actus reus is held to occur in cases of attempt (e.g., attempted battery) simply because
a series of muscular contractions occurred in the criminal that are believed to have come close to
harming the victim. In some jurisdictions, people can be convicted of conspiracy simply through
the action of agreeing. In many cases, even the omission of action qualifies as actus reus.

In cases of liability without fault, actus reus constitutes the whole of the criminal offense, even
when mens rea is absent. However, in the conventional cases which form the vast majority of
criminal law proceedings, actus reus is simply the backbone of the criminal offense, providing the
specific structure and context of the criminal charges and court procedure. The substance of the
trial - and the determination of criminal guilt or innocence - rests in mens rea.5

Examples of Actus Reus

In almost every crime it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that some action of the
defendant’s resulted in the effect, which is a criminal act.

Lack of Intent or Physical Act

Raju was the victim of fraud, and Sonu has been accused of the crime. Leading up to the incident
at hand, Sonu had sold his car to a man who paid him with a check. Sonu deposited the check, then
turned around and hired Raju to repair the plumbing in his bathroom, paying him with a personal
check. A day after Raju had deposited Sonu’s check, it bounced, causing a number of his own
payments to bounce, resulting in a whole slew of bank fees.

When Raju asked Sonu to pay him in cash, and to pay all of his bounced check fees, Sonu was
simply unable to do so. He was a victim himself of the man who defrauded him out of his car. Raju
takes the bounced check to the District Attorney, who considers whether criminal charges should
be pressed, but Raju is disappointed when he declines to do so. The DA explains that, while there
is no doubt that fraud, and a financial debacle have occurred, there is no proof that Sonu intended

4
Wikipedia.com

5
http://www.lectlaw.com
 [9]

(mens rea) to bilk Raju out of his hard-earned money, nor did any actual action taken by Sonu
(actus reus) amount to a crime.

Although Raju has the right to demand payment from Sonu, and can file a civil lawsuit if necessary,
this example of actus reus means that only the man who originally defrauded Sonu out of his car,
actually acted in an illegal manner.
 [10]

ROLE OF MENS REA AND ACTUS REUS IN IMPOSING

CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Most crimes consist of two broad elements: mens rea and actus reus. Mens rea means to have "a
guilty mind." The rationale behind the rule is that it is wrong for society to punish those who
innocently cause harm. Actus reus literally means "guilty act," and generally refers to an overt
act in furtherance of a crime. Requiring an overt act as part of a crime means that society has
chosen to punish only bad deeds, not bad thoughts.

To constitute criminal behavior, the actus reus and the mens rea must occur simultaneously. For
example, suppose Raju shoots Bob Roe with the intent to kill, but misses completely. Raju later
accidentally runs over Sonu, resulting in Sonu's death. Raju is not guilty of murder.

Different crimes require different degrees of intent. For example, to prove Theft, the prosecution
must establish that the defendant intentionally took property to which he knows he is not entitled,
intending to deprive the owner of possession permanently. Culpable homicide, on the other hand,
involves thoughtlessness, inadvertence, or inattention in a person's duty to exercise due care
toward others. A drunk driver who kills another is often charged with Culpable homicide.

A crime is a moral wrong, committed against the society as a whole. It disturbs the peace, and
some crimes may cause widespread panic and disruption of normal activities in a community
(Example: – the shooting in Mauryalok, Patna).

The burden of prosecution of a crime falls on the State, and the burden of proof falls on the
prosecution. The State acts to protect the victims of the crime and to prevent the offender from
committing more crimes and acts to provide justice to the victims. The State also takes measures
to punish the offender and most countries have reformation programs in prison in an attempt to
steer the offenders towards becoming law-abiding, dutiful citizens. An animal cannot commit a
crime; hence, an essential of any crime is that it must be committed by a human being. However,
crimes can be committed against animals and are punishable by law.

Mens rea and Actus Reus are two essentials of any crime and are the principles used in most
common law countries. Mens rea is the ‘guilty mind’ or guilty intention to commit a crime, with
the intention of causing hurt to another person, animal, or with the express intention of disturbing
the peace. Actus Reus, however, is the “guilty act”, which is a necessity in proving that a criminal
act was committed. When dealing with any crime, there are certain principles that need to be
followed, and the accused is given the benefit of the doubt. The onus is on the prosecution to prove
his/her guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. The goal of the defense is to provide the judge or jury
with a reasonable doubt since the principles of justice dictate that a person cannot be convicted if
the charge on which he/she is accused cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.6

6
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com
 [11]

MENS REA + ACTUS REUS = CRIME

“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” is the famous English maxim of criminal law. This maxim
means “The act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty mind.” This maxim is
popularly known as “Mens Rea”.

The maxim, therefore, connotes that the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention
was to commit a crime.

No offence has been committed if you were not neg-ligent 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.

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 circum-stances which afford you no legal justification, you are guilty
of murder.

Guilt in respect to almost all offences created under the IPC is fastened either on the ground of
intention, knowledge or reason to believe. Almost all the offences under the IPC are qualified by
one or other words such as ‘wrongful gain or loss’, ‘dishonesty’, ‘fraudulently’, ‘reason to believe’,
‘criminal knowledge or intention’, ‘intentional cooperation’, ‘voluntarily’. All these words
indicate the blameworthy mental condition required at the time of commission of the offence,
nowhere found in the IPC, its essence is reflected in almost all the provisions of the Indian Penal
Code 1860. Every offence created under the IPC virtually imports the idea of criminal intent or
mens rea in some form or other.

Technically the Doctrine of Mens Rea is not applied to the offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Here it is wholly out of place. In the Indian Penal Code, 1860, every offence is defined very clearly.
The definition not only states what accused might have done, that also states about the state of his
mind, with regard to the act when he was doing it.Each definition of the offence is complete in
itself. The words “mens rea” are not used any where in the Indian Penal Code. However the framers
of the Code used the equivalent words to those of mens rea in the Code very frequently.
 [12]

Strict liability: Exception to the general rule.

The exception to this rule is called strict liability in Criminal law where the law itself say that one's
act would be considered a crime irrespective of whether he had the mental element to do that crime.
Strict liability crimes are the only offences that do not require a mens rea to be established in court
to secure a conviction.

Strict liability offences are those in which the defendant can be found guilty of a crime solely by
the presence of a actus reus (guilty action), despite the intention or mens rea of the perpetrator
during the commission of the crime. The defendants in strict liability crimes are criminally liable
even if they were unaware or ignorant of facts that would make their act or omission a criminal
offence.

Strict liability is generally applied to minor offences like inappropriate parking or serving alcohol
to someone below the legal drinking age. But there are some serious strict liability crimes as well.
Drunk driving is a serious strict liability offence where mens rea doesn't have to be established and
only the actus reus of driving a motor vehicle when intoxicated can get the defendant convicted.

It is often said that no mens rea is needed for strict liability offences. This is probably an over
simplification. A more complete answer would be that the prosecution does not have to prove the
existence of mens rea for one or more of the elements of the actus reus of the offence.

Ordinarily the criminal law is concerned with blame worthiness. There are various levels of mens
rea or blameworthiness. Some offences are more serious than others and, as a general rule, the
more serious the offence the higher the level of mens rea required such as ‘intention’ or
‘recklessness’. This is related to the consequences of conviction and again, as a general rule, the
more serious the offence – the greater the punishment.7

In effect, it is possible to be convicted of a strict liability offence without any degree of fault. The
defendant may not have acted deliberately or in any way to bring about the state of affairs. It may
be enough that the situation has arisen.

Strict Liability is the liability in which the wrongdoer is liable to the acts for which he is not
responsible. The need for it was felt in the 19th century, to improve working and safety standards
in factories. The doctrine of Strict Liability has formed its foundation in the England’s case
Rylands vs. Fletcher in which : The defendant, owned a mill, where he constructed a reservoir to
supply water to the mill. This reservoir was constructed over old coal mines, and the mill owner
had no reason to suspect that these old diggings led to an operating colliery. The water in the
reservoir ran down the old shafts and flooded the colliery. Blackburn J. held the mill owner to be
liable, on the principle that “The person who for his own purposes brings on his land and collects
and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and if he

7
Wikipedia.com
 [13]

does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of
its escape”. 8On appeal this principle of liability without fault was affirmed by the House of Lords
but restricted to non- natural users vide. Thus, corporations that handle water, electricity, oil,
noxious fumes, colliery spoil and poisonous vegetation are covered by this doctrine. Negligence
of the victims is no excuse. The doctrine also operates as a loss-distribution mechanism: The
person indulging in such hazardous activities (usually a corporation) being in the best position to
spread the loss through insurance and higher prices of its products. However, later decisions in
England diluted the principle by introducing several exceptions. The Shriram judgment
categorically said that such exceptions would not be applicable in India. The present verdict further
emphasises this point and expands its scope.

The doctrine of Strict Liability evolved in India the case of MC Mehta’s where the Supreme Court
had imposed the “strict liability” principle on erring industries. It ruled that “if the enterprise is
permitted to carry on any hazardous or inherently dangerous activity for its profit, the law must
presume that such permission is conditional on the enterprise absorbing the cost of any accident
arising on account of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity as an appropriate item of its
overhead”. The court also emphasised that there are no exceptions to the rule of strict liability.
Moreover, the amount of compensation would depend upon the capacity of the enterprise and not
the earning capacity of the individual victims. In the Union of India vs Prabhakaran, where the
Supreme Court had extended its cover to public utilities like the railways, electricity distribution
companies, public corporations and local bodies “which may be social utility undertakings not
working for private profit”. In this case a woman fell on a railway track and was fatally run over.
Her husband demanded compensation. The railways argued that she was negligent as she tried to
board a moving train. The Supreme Court rejected this contention and said that her “contributory
negligence” should not be considered in such untoward incidents — the railways has “strict
liability”. The Supreme Court had applied this doctrine to the electricity mishaps. An electric wire
had snapped and fallen on the road. On a rainy night, a cyclist came in contact with it. He died on
the spot. His widow demanded damages from the electricity authorities, MPSEB vs Shail Kumari,
2002. The board argued that the wire belonged to a pilferer and that it was not negligent. Rejecting
this contention, the Supreme Court said: “It is no defence on the part of the board that somebody
committed mischief by siphoning off energy to his private property and the electrocution was from
such diverted line… Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk
out measures to prevent such mishaps.” The basis of the liability is the “foreseeable risk inherent
in the very nature of such activity”.

Judgment of MC Mehta’s case -

Original jurisdiction – Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

8
Law of Torts by R.K Bangia
 [14]

Justice Bhagwati delivered the judgment that the Bench of three Judge permitted Shriram Foods
and Fertiliser Industries to restart its power plant as also plants for manufacture of caustic chlorine
including its by-products and recovery plants like soap, glycerine and technical hard oil, subject
to the conditions set out in the Judgment. That would have ordinarily put an end to the main
controversy raised in the writ petition which was filed in order to obtain a direction for closure of
the various units of Shriram on the ground that they were hazardous to the community and the
dipute was only, whether the units of Shriram should be directed to be removed from the place
where they are presently situate and relocated in another place where there would not be much
human habitation so that there would not be any real danger to the health and safety of the people.
But while the writ petition was pending there was escape of oleum gas from one of the units of
Shriram on 4th and 6th December, 1985 and applications were filed by the Delhi Legal Aid &
Advice Board and the Delhi Bar Association for award of compensation to the persons who had
suffered harm on account of escape of oleum gas. These applications for compensation raised a
number of issues of great constitutional importance and the Bench of three Judges therefore
formulated the issues and asked the petitioner and those supporting him as also Shriram to file
their respective written submissions. When these applications for compensation came up for
hearing it was felt that since the issues raised involved substantial questions of law relating to the
interpretation of Articles 21 and 32 of the Constitution.

Shriram is engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda, chlorine etc. Its various units are set up in
a single complex surrounded by thickly populated colonies. Chlorine gas is admittedly dangerous
to life and’ health. If the gas escapes either from the storage tank or from the filled cylinders or
from any other point in the course of production, the health and wellbeing of the people living in
the vicinity can be seriously affected. Thus Shriram is engaged in an activity which has the
potential to invade the right to life of large sections of people.

Strict Liability doctrine can be define as the acts or omissions which are held liable without the
mens rea (mental intent). It is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil
context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and
loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability including the fault in criminal
law. The courts to apply this doctrine must examine the overall purpose of the statute. If the
intention is to introduce quasi-criminal offences, strict liability will be acceptable to give quick
penalties to encourage future compliance, e.g. fixed-penalty parking offences. But, if the policy
issues involved are sufficiently significant and the punishments more severe, the test must be
whether reading in a mens rea requirement will defeat Parliament’s intention in creating the
particular offence, i.e. if defendants might escape liability too easily by pleading ignorance, this
would not address the “mischief” that Parliament was attempting to remedy.
 [15]

Difference between the Strict Liability in India with respect to the principle of it
evolved in the Rylands v. Fletcher
1. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher requires non-natural use of land by the defendant and escape
from his land of the thing, which causes damage. But the rule in MC Mehta v. Union of
India is not dependant upon any such conditions. The necessary requirements for
applicability of the new rule are that the defendant is engaged in hazardous or inherently
dangerous activity and that harm results to anyone on account of an accident in the
operation of such hazardous or inherently dangerous activity
2. The rule in Rylands v. Fletcher will not cover cases of harm to persons within the premises
for the rule requires escape of the thing, which causes harm from the premises. The new
rule makes no distinction between the persons within the premises where the enterprise is
carried on and persons outside the premises for escape of the thing causing harm from the
premises is not a necessary condition for the applicability of the rule.
3. Damages awardable where the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher applies will be ordinary or
compensatory where as in Methas case the court can allow exemplary damages and the
larger and more prosperous the enterprise, the greater must be the amount of compensation
payable by it.9

9
Law.jrank.com
 [16]

CULPABILITY OF MENS REA & ACTUS REUS:JUDICIAL OVERVIEW

Hari Prasad Rao vs. State (AIR 1951 SC 204)

In this case, a servant of a petrol dealer supplied motor spirit without coupons and in some cases
took advance coupons from the consumers, without supplying them the spirit, which was an
offence under the Motor Rationing Order, 1941.

The Supreme Court held that there were no grounds for conviction of the master, especially
when he was not present at the time of delivery of the spirit. He, however, was convicted for
non-endorsement on coupons by his servant which was mandatory and an absolute rule. Non-
observance of such statutory rules was punishable even without mens rea.

Nathulal vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1966 SC 43)

In this case, the accused/a food grain dealer applied for a licence and deposited the requisite
licence fee. He, without knowledge of rejection of his application, purchased food grains and
sent returns to the Licencing Authority, who on checking, found that it was in excess of the
quantity permitted by Section 7 of MP Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958. The accused
was prosecuted. However he was acquitted on the ground that he had no guilty mind.

Malhan K.A. vs. Kora Bibi Kutti (1996 SCC 281)

The accused was a financier. He seized a vehicle for which he financed but did not receive the
instalments. The person from whom the vehicle was seized complained to Police alleging that
the accused had stolen his vehicle.

The Supreme Court held that the element of mens rea is totally wanting in this case and the
accused cannot be convicted for the offence of theft under Section 379.

Sankaran Sukumaran vs. Krishnan Saraswathi (1984 CrLJ 317)

the Supreme Court held that Mens Rea is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 494
(Bigamy), where the second marriage has been entered in a bona fide belief that the first
marriage was not subsisting, no offence under Section 494 is committed.

Dahya Bhai Chagganbhai Thakkar vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 1964 SC 1763)
The Supreme Court observed and explained the law of burden of proof in insanity cases as
follows: “The Doctrine of Burden of Proof in the context of the plea of insanity may be stated in
the following propositions: -
 [17]

1. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed the
offence with the requisite Mens Rea, and the burden of proving that always rests on the
prosecution from the beginning to the end of the trial.

2. There is a rebuttable presumption that the accused was not insane, when he committed the
crime, in the sense laid down by Section 84 of the Penal Code; the accused may rebut it by
placing before the Court all the relevant evidence oral, documentary or circumstantial, but the
burden of proof upon him is no higher than that rests upon a party to civil proceeding.

3. Even if the accused was not able to establish conclusively that he was insane at the time he
committed the offence and, the evidence placed before the Court by the accused or by the
prosecution may raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court as regards one or more of the
ingredients of the offence, including Mens Rea of the accused and in that case the Court would
be entitled to acquit the accused on the ground that the general burden of proof resting on the
prosecution was not discharged.

4. To differentiate between Culpable Homicide (Section 299) and Murder (Section 300), the
Court depends upon the Doctrine of Mens Rea.

State v. Abdul Latif and others, 1974

The court said, we mean by it (act) any event which is subject to the control of human “will”.
Thus, according to Salmotid, act includes all those events which are subject to control of human
will.

This act may be of different kinds. It may be positive act done by some body or it may be
omission to check something from happening on account of inaction, it may be intentional or
unintentional.

The word ‘actus’ connotes a physical result of conduct. The ‘actus reus’ may be defined ‘such
result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent. As actus reus is the result of conduct of
human beings, it should be distinguished from event.10

10
Indiankanoon.org
 [18]

CONCLUSION
In modern statutory offenses, the maxim has no longer applicable and the statutes are to be
regarded as themselves prescribing the mental element which is pre-requisite to a conviction. So
mens rea is an essential element of crime, in every penal statue unless the same either expressly or
by necessary implication is ruled out by the statues.

Technically, the application of mens rea is not applied to the offences under IPC. Every offence is
very clear under IPC 1860. The definition not only states what accused might have done, that also
states about the state of his mind with regard to the act when he was doing it. Each definition of
the offence is complete in itself. The word Mens Rea are not used anywhere in IPC. However, the
equivalent words to those of mens rea in the IPC Code used are: Dishonestly (section- 24),
Fraudulently (section- 25), reason to believe (section- 26) and voluntarily (section- 39)

An act is a willed movement of body. Austin defines it “as a bodily movement caused by volition—
a volition being a desire for bodily movement, which is immediately followed by such movement
provided the bodily member is in a normal condition”. Holmes observes that “an act is always a
voluntary muscular contraction and nothing else”.

In case of murder, the result is victim’s death by the conduct of the murderer may be said as actus
reus and murderer’s intention to cause the death is the mens rea. Actus reus may be classified into
following branches:-

(i) A willed movement or omission;

(ii) Certain surrounding circumstances (including present and past acts);

(iii) Certain consequences.

A willed movement is a conduct which results from the operation of the will. It may be external
or internal. According to Austin any movement of the body which is not a consequence of the
determination of the will, is not an act.

The involuntary actions will not become criminal acts. In an important Melbourne case (Australia
Cogden) reported in ‘Daily Telegraph Paper’ Dec. 20, 1950, a mother dreamt that her daughter
was seduced by a soldier. Immediately she got up in her sleep, took an axe and killed her daughter
thinking that she was killing the soldier. She was held not guilty of murder.

Criminal Law is generally concerned to the conduct of such person which is hurtful to the society.
Such conduct should be prevented by law or made punishable under the law if it is committed by
a person. If the conduct is not prohibited by law, the act will not be termed as a crime.
 [19]

For example:

A shoots at P, misses him and kills a rabbit. This is not a murder because actus reus of murder
requires a harmful result in addition to the act of shooting of a human being. In present example
shooting is there but shooting of human being is not there. So murder cannot be constituted.Actus
reus includes negative as well as positive elements. The actus reus of murder includes not only
person’s killing but such person’s killing who is under the protection of the king or under state’s
protection. Negative act refers the omission also.

Mens rea began as a matter of morality and law. Earlier it was a subjective test but gradually it
became an objective test. The objective test is applied to ascertain whether a person has
committed an offence with an evil intention. Mens rea may be of different kinds as —

Intention:

Intention indicates the state of mind of a man who not only foresees but also desires the possible
consequence of his conduct. For example—I throw a stone at a man with the desire to cause
injury to him. As a result injury is caused to such person by the stone. The desire to cause injury
to the person is intention or mens rea and throwing the stone is actus reus.

Recklessness:

It occurs when the actor does not desire the consequence but foresees the possibility and
consciously takes the risk about the consequences. Such consequences may or may not happen.

Negligence:

Negligence as opposed to intention indicates a state of mind or absence of desire to cause a

particular consequence. Negligence means blame-worthy inadvertence. Negligence, in law, has
got two meanings: (i) Firstly, it indicates inadvertence of conduct of a reasonable man; (ii)
Secondly, the conduct of man should be a legal fault.

Recklessness, more or less, includes negligent conduct. Negligence requires subjective and
objective inquiry of the conduct of a man.

Motive:

There is difference between motive and intention. Motive is an attitude of mind or ultimate
object which is intended to achieve. Motive may be said as an emotion prompting the act e.g.,
love, compassion, fear, jealousy, perverted lust, hatred, political gesture, desire for money, desire
for religion.

Mens rea is important in the English law of crimes. Stroud in his treatise on mens rea observes
that, All crimes have their conception in a corrupt intent and their consummation and issuing in
 [20]

some particular fact. He further elaborates the statement that, “In other words the guilt of an act
charged against a prisoner must always depend upon two conditions

1. the act in question was prohibited by law

2. when he did the act the prisoner knew, or ought to have known, that it was within such
prohibition. These two conditions may be called the conditions of illegality (actus reus)
and the condition of culpable intentionality (mens rea).

The position of mens rea under British law where the statute is silent about the mens rea. One
view is that if the Legislature has not written anything about mens rea, the mens rea will not be
considered by the court to determine the offence.

The literal interpretation should be made by the court. Another view which is former in time,
establishes that Legislature is bound to follow the common law rules. According to common law
rules, any offence cannot be established without mens rea.

Many criminal lawyers, judges, and professors see the distinction between actus reus and mens
rea as one of the more basic of criminal law. Along with the offence-defence distinction, it helps
us organize the way we conceptualize and analyse liability. It is said to be ‘the corner-stone of
discussion on the nature of criminal liability’. And, the concepts of actus reus and mens rea have
‘justified themselves by their usefulness’.

It is proved through the above discussion as to what is the importance of Mens rea and Actus
reus, My project thereby proves my hypotheses and I hope it was informative for everyone.
 [21]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS

• The Indian Penal Code by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, Lexis Nexis.

• Law of torts by R.K Bangia

STATUES

• Indian Penal Code, 1860

WEBSITES

• https://indiankanoon.org/
• https://www.netlawman.co.in
• https://www.lawcommissionofindia.nic.in
• https://www. comtax.up.nic.in
• https://www.law.cornell.edu/
• https://www.newagepublishers.com
• https://www.lawhandbook.org