Principles of criminal liability

PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY:- 'actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea'

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 intent.

It is a principle of natural justice, "The maxim is sometimes said to be a fundamental principle of the whole criminal law

The maxim that, generally, a person cannot be guilty of a crime unless two elements are present: the *actus reus('guilty act') and the *mens rea('guilty mind').

Most criminal offences require-

(1) anactus reus (conduct 'external' to the defendant's thoughts and intentions) and
(2) amens rea (a specific state of mind on the part of the accused).

INGREDIENTS TO CRIME

The elements of crime are a series of component which must be presented in order for it to be demonstrated that some one is guilty of crime.

Thus four element that go to constitute a crime are as follows:-

1. a human being under legal obligation to act in a particular way and a fit subject for the inflection of appropriate punishment.
2. An evil intend or mensrea on the part of such human being
3. Actusreus i.e. act committed or omitted in furtherance of such an intend and
4. An injury to another human being or to the society at large by such act

ACTUS REUS:

THE WORD actus CONNOTES A 'deed' A PHYSICAL RESULT OF HUMAN CONDUCT.
THE WORD reus means 'forbidden by law.

THE actus reus IS MADE UP OF THREE CONSTITUENT PARTS, NAMELY: -

1. HUMAN ACTION: 'CONDUCT'
2. RESULT OF CONDUCT
3. ACTS PROHIBITED BY LAW

MENS REA

Mental element in crime. Intention mens rea means a mental state, in which a person deliberately violates a law. Thus mens rea means intention to do the prohibited act. No act per se (itself) is criminal, the act becomes a crime only when it is done with a guilt mind. It signifies the mental element necessary to convict for any crime.

Mensrea is not the same thing as motive. The mens rea refers to the intent with on which the criminal act happened. On the other hand, the motive refers to the reason of criminal act.

In Director of Enforcement v. M/s MCTM Corpn. Pvt.Ltd AIR 1996 SC 1100(1103),the Apex Court held:

'Mens rea' is a state of mind. Under the criminal law, mens rea is considered as the 'guilty intention' and unless it is found that the 'accused had the guilty intention to commit the 'crime' he cannot beheld 'guilty' of committing the crime.

- INJURY
- VOLUNTARY
- HUMAN BEING

Exception of Mens rea:

Offence against state, police, nuisance, and stick liability etc Mens rea is not require

The only exceptions to mens rea in the code, where offences are punishable without requirement of mens rea being established are -

• Offences against the state, i.e. waging war-S. 121, Sedition-S. 124-A
• Kidnapping and Abduction (S. 359 and S. 363 resp.)
• Counterfeiting of coins (S. 232).

Degree of Mens Rea

• Intention
• Knowledge
• Negligence
• Recklessness

Intention

Is a basic rule. Intention is to bring about a desired act. An intended to commit an illegal act. Intention to sustain injury to other like to Kill (intention to caused death).

Presumption of Intention- Natural and probable consequences should be presumed.
Consent- Intention to have sexual pleasure from a person without her consent

Knowledge

Direct appeal to your senses. Here the probability is very high (against to commit the act against Law). Experience to purchase a stolen good.

Theft- To taking possession without the consent of the owner.

Motives-

Intention and motives is two different things in a crime. Motive may be to get anything, Intention to kill the person. Motive may be good or bad, but intention is bad than it becomes crime. Motive leads to intention, and ulterior intention is motive. In fixing criminal liability motive may be irrelevant, but intention is maintain or main element.

Recklessness (irresponsibility)

Basic principle of fixing a criminal liability.

Is the combination of: Foresight and Indifference. Doing something without the knowledge but the foresight.

Mans Rea In the IPC?

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.

The general principle of mens rea has defined in IPC in two ways:

1. Qualifying Words: 'dishonestly', 'fraudulently', 'voluntarily', 'intentionally', 'knowingly' - Wrongful gain and Wrongful Loss-ETC
2. General Exceptions under Chapter IVof IPS like accident, infancy, insanity, intoxication ext.

Examples:

A is at work with a hatchet; the head flays of and kill a person accidently. A is not liable for a murder, because some exception are granted under chapter IV of IPC.

Examples:

Infancy- A child below age 7 kill a person. A is not liable for a murder, because some exception are granted under chapter IV of IPC.

Stick Liability

It is possible there is no Mans Rea, but you are liable under IPC, because a crime without Mans Rea is a Stick Liability, or When the definition does not include mens rea, it means that the liability is strict.

Example: Section 292-Selling an obstinate literature is a crime

Cases on Mens Rea

R v. Prince, L.R. 2 C.C.R. 154 (1875): Henry Prince was accused of abducting a 14-year-old girl, Annie Phillips, having believed her to be 18 years old. Such an act was at that time in violation of Article 55. Prince argued that he had made a reasonable mistake in regards to Phillips' age. Despite his excuse for the crime, he was ultimately convicted. It was held that the mens rea necessary for criminal liability should be required for the elements central to the wrongfulness of the act, and that strict liability should apply to the other elements of the statute.

Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1994 (3) SCC 569: The element of mens rea must be read into a statutory penal provision unless a statute either expressly or by necessary implication rules it out

CONCLUSION

THERE MUST BE A MIND AT FAULT TO CONSITUTE A CRIME. CAUSING INJURY TO AN ASSAILANT IN SELF-DEFENCE IS NOT A CRIME, BUT THE MOMENT INJURY IS CAUSED WITH INTENT TO TAKE REVENGE, THE ACT BECOMES CRIMINAL.

MENS REA TAKES ON DIFFERENT COLOURS IN DIFFERENT SURROUNDINGS:

IN THE CASE OF MURDER, IT IS THE INTENT TO CAUSE DEATH,
IN THE CASE O F THEFT, AN INTENTION TO STEAL,
IN THE CASE OF RAPE, AN INTENTION TO HAVE FORCIBLE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH A WOMAN WITHOUT HER CONSENT.
IN THE CAS E OF RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS, KNOWLEDGE THAT THE GOODS WERE STOLEN.