Mens Rea
Anantalf
(Querist) 13 April 2011
This query is : Resolved
Mens rea---what and how to prove it?
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Abscondance—Effect of—Though such conduct is relevant but this by itself is not sufficient to hold guilty mind of accused.
Mere absconding by itself does not necessarily lead to a firm conclusion of guilty mind. Even an innocent man may feel panicky and try to evade arrest when wrongly suspected of a grave crime: such is the instinct of sell-preservation. The act of absconding is no doubt relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence but its value would always depend on the circumstances of each case. Normally the Courts are disinclined to attach much importance to the act of absconding, treating it as a very small item in the evidence for sustaining conviction. It can scarcely be held as a determining link in completing the chain of circumstantial evidence which must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.
Matru alias Girish Chandra v. The State of U.P., 1971 CrLJ 913 : 1971 AIR (SC) 1050 : 1971 (3) SCR 914 : 1971(2) SCC 75
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Adulteration of food—In public interest it was necessary to impose liability for adulteration of food articles without insisting on proof of guilty mind.
It is true that for the protection of the liberty of the citizen, in the definition of offences blameworthy mental condition is ordinarily an ingredient either by express enactment or clear implication; but in Acts enacted to deal with a grave social evil, or for ensuring public welfare, especially in offences against public health, e.g. statutes regulating storage or sale of articles of food and drink, sale of drugs, sale of controlled or scare commodities, it is often found necessary in the larger public interest to provide for imposition of liability without proof of a guilty mind.
It enacts that a vendor selling articles of food adulterated or misbranded cannot plead merely that he was ignorant of the nature, substance or quality of the goods, A statute enacted by the Parliament in the interest of public health (which is generally made in similar statutes elsewhere) imposing liability for an offence without proof of a guilty mind does not per se impose restrictions on the freedom to carry on trade which are unreasonable.
Andhra Pradesh Grain and Seed Merchants Association and others, etc. v. Union of India and another etc., 1971 CrLJ 1556 : 1971 AIR (SC) 2346 : 1971(1) SCR 166 : 1970(1) Andh LT 281 : 1971(1) Mad LJ (SC) 69
Mens rea—Adulteration of food—Manufacture and sale of adulterated articles for human consumption—Proof of mens rea is not necessary for conviction.
Shah Ashu Jaiwant v. State of Maharashtra, 1975 CrLJ 1868 : 1975 AIR (SC) 2178 : 1976 SCC (Cr) 236 : 1975 CrLR (SC) 517 : 1975 CAR 288
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Conduct of accused—Preparation of false record to prove an alibi—Any doubt about involvement of accused in the offence is removed by such conduct.
Any doubt lurking about the involvement of respondent 1 in the incident is removed by his own conduct. Though he was unquestionably present at the police station at the material time, he prepared a false record in order to show that he had gone for the purpose of an identification parade to another place. We agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the record was thus prepared by respondent 1 falsely in order to support the defence of alibi. That, indeed, was his defence at the trial. He also prepared false record to show that Brijlal was involved in a dacoity case and was brought to the police station for that reason. There was no such charge against Brijlal and yet, respondent 1, as the S.H.O., authorised or allowed respondents 3 and 4 to go to Haibatpur for arresting Brijlal. The true reason for arresting him was that the respondents were incensed at the complaint made by Brijlal against respondent 2 for extorting a bribe.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Sagar Yadav and others, 1986 CrLJ 836 : 1985 AIR (SC) 416 : 1985 SCC (Cr) 552 : 1985 CrLR (SC) 73 : 1985(1) Crimes 344 : 1985(1) Rec CrR 600
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Contempt—Standard of proof—Allegation of contempt by Judicial Officer due to error of judgment— Requirement of strict proof of wilful conduct not satisfied—Conviction not permissible.
The broad test to be applied in such cases is, whether the act complained of was calculated to obstruct or had an intrinsic tendency to interfere with the course of justice and the due administration of law. The standard of proof required to establish a charge of `criminal contempt' is the same as in any other criminal proceeding. It is all the more necessary to insist upon strict proof of such charge when the act or omission complained of is committed by the respondent under colour of his office as a judicial officer. Wrong order or even an act of usurpation of jurisdiction committed by a judicial Officer, owing to an error of judgment or to a misapprehension of the correct legal position, does not fall within the mischief of "criminal contempt". Human judgment is fallible and a judicial Officer is no exception. Consequently, so long as a judicial Officer in the discharge of his official duties, acts in good faith and without any motive to defeat, obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice, the courts will not, as a rule punish him for a "criminal contempt". Even if it could be urged that mens rea, as such, is not an indispensable ingredient of the offence of contempt, the courts are loath to punish a contemner, if the act or omission complained of, was not wilful.
S. Abdul Karim v. M.K. Prakash and others, 1976 CrLJ 641 : 1976 AIR (SC) 859 : 1976 CAR 124 : 1976 CrLR (SC) 102 : 1976 Ker LT 184 : 1976 SCC (Cr) 217
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Conviction—Sale of adulterated food—Mens rea not essential ingredient—Essential ingredient is sale to the purchaser by the vendor—It is not material to establish the capacity of the person—Sale effected by son of the owner—Liable to be convicted.
The Act is a welfare legislation to prevent health hazards by consuming adulterated food. The mens rea is not an essential ingredient. It is a social evil and the Act prohibits commission of the offences under the Act. The essential ingredient is sale to the purchaser by the vendor. It is not material to establish the capacity of the person vis-a-vis the owner of the shop to prove his authority to sell the adulterated food exposed for sale in the shop. It is enough for the prosecution to establish that the person who sold the adulterated article of food had sold it to the purchaser (including the Food Inspector) and that Food Inspector purchased the same in strict compliance with the provisions of the Act. As stated earlier the sanctioning authority has to consider the material placed before it whether the offence of adulteration of food was committed and punishable under the Act. Once that satisfaction is reached and the authority is competent to grant the sanction, the sanction is valid. It is not necessary for the sanctioning authority to consider that the person sold is the owner, servant, agent or partner or relative of the owner or was duly authorised in this behalf.
State of Orissa v. K. Rajeshwar Rao, 1992 CrLJ 300 : 1992 AIR (SC) 240 : 1992 (Cr) 177 : 1992 CAR 45 : 1992 CrLR (SC) 390 : 1991(3) Crimes 868
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Corruption—Acceptance of illegal gratification—Mere receipt of money by itself give rise to presumption—Proof of guilty conscience is not necessary.
If moneys were recovered from the pockets of the two accused persons which were not their legal remuneration then on the material on the record there can be no further question of showing that these moneys had been consciously received by them, because the defence version that these moneys had been thrust into their pockets is, on the face of it, wholly unsatisfactory and unreasonable, if not flimsy.
State of Assam v. Krishna Rao and another, 1973 CrLJ 169 : 1973 AIR (SC) 28 : 1973(2) SCR 239 : 1973 (3) SCC 227 : 1973 Cr LR (SC) 304
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Criminal intent—Determination of—Sale of textile cloth at a price in excess of controlled price—Upon questioning the accused state that he was selling the handloom cloth—Failure to produce permit by the accused—These circumstances warrant the inference of criminal intent.
Joylal Agarwala v. The State, 1951 AIR SC 484 : 1952 CrLJ 69 : 1952 SCR 127 : 1952 MadWN 60
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Criminal intent—Determination of—Sale of textile cloth at a price in excess of controlled price—Upon questioning the accused state that he was selling the handloom cloth—Failure to produce permit by the accused—These circumstances warrant the inference of criminal intent.
Joylal Agarwala v. The State, 1951 AIR SC 484 : 1952 CrLJ 69 : 1952 SCR 127 : 1952 MadWN 60
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Exclusion by implication—Presumption of—Principles for deter- mining the necessity to prove mens rea in respect of statutory offence—Effect of nature and object of statute creating the offence.
Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. Doubtless a statute may exclude the element of mens rea, but it is a sound rule of construction adopted in England and also accepted in India to construe a statutory provision creating an offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excluded mens rea. The mere fact that the object of the statute is to promote welfare activities or to eradicate a grave social evil is by itself not decisive of the question whether the element of guilty mind is excluded from the ingredients of an offence. Mens rea by necessary implication may be excluded from a statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of the statute would otherwise be defeated. The nature of the mens rea that would be implied in a statute creating an offence depends on the object of the Act and the provisions thereof.
Having regard to the object of the Essential Commodities Act, namely, to control in general public interest, among others, trade in certain commodities, it cannot be said that the object of the Act would be defeated if mens rea is read as an ingredient of the offence. The provisions of the Act do not lead to any such exclusion. Indeed, it could not have been the intention of the Legislature to impose heavy penalties like imprisonment for a period upto 3 years and to impose heavy fines on an innocent person who carries on business in an honest belief that he is doing the business in terms of the law. Having regard to the scope of the Act it would be legitimate to hold that a person commits an offence under Section 7 of the Act if he intentionally contravenes any order made under Section 3 of the Act. So construed the object of the Act will be best served and innocent persons will also be protected from harassment.
Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1966 CrLJ 71 : 1966 AIR SC 43 : 1965 Mah LJ 783 : 1965 MPLJ 832 : 1966 Mad LJ (Cri) 679
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Intention of accused—Proof of—Incorrect entry made by Patwari in revenue record—No direct evidence proving the intention to cause loss or injury to public—Circumstantial evidence also too meagre to support any safe conclusion—Conviction, set aside.
Raghubansh Lal v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 1957 AIR SC 486 : 1957 CrLJ 595 : 1957 SCR 696 : 1957 All LJ 472 : 1957 BLJR 362 : 1957 Ker LJ 452
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Intention to cause death—Injury if sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature—Its determination is purely objective and inferential which has nothing to do with the intention of offender.
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, 1958 AIR SC 465 :1958 CrLJ 818: 1958 SCR 1495 : 1958 Mad LJ (Cri) 579: 1958 All WR (SC) 572
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Knowledge of offence—Certainty—Necessity of—Violation for breach of subordinate legislation—It must be shown that legal mandate was certain and clear so as to be capable of compliance.
The question may also be considered from point of view, viz., if the legal mandate contained in the Order is expressed with such certainty and clarity as to give reasonably precise and adequate guidance to those who want to be law-abiding. In other words, does the Order lay down an ascertainable standard of guilt by unambiguously specifying the Tyres and Tubes of Motor Cars as a scheduled item. We do not think it does. Unless the dealers are in a position to know with certainty that the items of Tyres and Tubes of Motor Cars are included in the scheduled items of which the price list and the stock position are to be included displayed in a conspicuous part of their business premises, in our opinion they cannot be held guilty in a criminal Court of an offence under the Essential Commodities Act for violation of any such mandate. According to the fundamental principle of our criminal jurisprudence, which reflects fair play, the dealer must know with reasonable certainty and must have a fair warning as to what his obligation is and what act of commission or omission on his part would constitute a criminal offence before he can be called upon to answer a charge and be liable to be convicted in a criminal Court for any violation of a legal mandate. This approach is in conformity with the general requirement that the act or default should be associated with a legally blameworthy condition of mind.
State of Bihar v. Bhagirath Sharma and another, 1973 CrLJ 1184 : 1973 AIR (SC) 2198 : 1973(2) SCC 257 : 1973(3) SCR 937 : 1973 CAR 229
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Meaning of.
"Mens era" 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 be held "guilty" of committing the crime.
Director of Enforcement v. M/s. MCT M Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and others, 1996 CrLJ 1623 : 1966 AIR (SC) 1100 : 1996 SCC (Cr) 344
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Murder—Injury caused with intention of causing death or with the knowledge that act is likely to cause death—Existence of positive mental attitude is a requirement of special mens rea under the provision.
"Intent" and "knowledge" in the ingredients of Section 299 postulate the existence of positive mental attitude and this mental condition is the special mens rea necessary for the offence. The guilty intention in the first two conditions contemplates the intended death of the person harmed or the intentional causing of an injury likely to cause his death. The knowledge in the third condition contemplates knowledge of the likelyhood of the death of the persons.
Jayaraj v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1976 CrLJ 1186 : 1976 AIR (SC) 519 : 1976 CrLR (SC) 236 : 1976 CAR 176 : 1976 SCC (Cr) 293
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Necessity of—Contravention of provisions of Section 10 FERA—`Penalty' under Section 23(1)(a)—`Mens rea' is not an essential ingredient—Even after adjudication by authorities and levy of penalty defaulter can be tried and punished under penal law—Failure to pay penalty itself attracts prosecution under Section 23F.
It is true the breach of a "civil obligation" which attracts "penalty" under Section 23(1)(a) FERA, 1947 and a finding that the delinquent have contravened the provisions of Section 10 FERA, 1947 would immediately attract the levy of `penalty' under Section 23, irrespective of the fact whether the contravention was made by the defaulter with any "guilty intention" or not. Therefore, unlike in a criminal case, where it is essential for the "prosecution" to establish that the "accused" had the necessary guilty intention or in other words the requisite `mens rea' to commit the alleged offence with which he is charged before recording his conviction, the obligation on the part of the Directorate of Enforcement, in cases of contravention of the provisions of Section 10 of FERA, would be discharged where it is shown that the "blameworthy conduct" of the delinquent had been established by wilful contravention by him of the provisions of Section 10, FERA, 1947. It is the delinquency of the defaulter itself which establishes his "blameworthy" conduct, attracting the provisions of Section 23(1)(a) of FERA, 1947 without any further proof of the existence of "mens rea". Even after an adjudication by the authorities and levy of penalty under Section 23(1)(a) of FERA, 1947, the defaulter can still be tried and punished for the commission of an offence under the penal law, where the act of the defaulter also amounts to an offence the penal law and the bar under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India in such a case would not be attracted. The failute to pay the penalty by itself attracts `prosecution' under Section 23F and on conviction by the `Court' for the said offence imprisonment may follow.
Director of Enforcement v. M/s. MCT M Corporation Pvt. Ltd. and others, 1996 CrLJ 1623 : 1966 AIR (SC) 1100 : 1996 SCC (Cr) 344
Mens rea—Necessity of—It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused has the reason to believe that the offence has been committed—Mere suspicion is not sufficient.
In order to establish the charge under Section 201, Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed—mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient—that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed and with the requisite knowledge and with the instant to screen the offender from legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information respecting such offences knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false.
Palvinder Kaur v. The State of Punjab, 1952 AIR SC 354 : 1953 CrLJ 154 : 1953 SCR 94
Mens rea—Necessity of—Vicarious liability fixed under the Statute—Presumption that occupier or Manager responsible for compliance of provisions of the Act and Rules, are liable for non-compliance—Proof of mens rea is not necessary—Responsibility exists without guilty mind.
State of Gujarat v. Kansara Manilal Bhikhalal, 1965(1) CrLJ 90 : 1965 AIR (SC) 1893 : 1964 (7) SCR 656 : 1964 (5) Guj LR 819 : 1964 Curr LJ (SC) 309
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Necessity of proof—Actual knowledge of act done being contrary to law—Where the Statute by necessity implication rules out presence of mens rea essential, conviction without proof of guilty mind is not illegal.
The presumption that mens rea is an essential ingredient of an offence equally applies to an offence created by statute, though the presumption is liable to be displaced by the words of the statute creating the offence, or by the subject-matter dealt with by it.
But unless the statute clearly or by fair implication rules out mens rea, a man should not be convicted unless he has a guilty mind. In other words, absolute liability is not to be presumed, but ought to be established or the purpose of finding out if the presumption is displaced, reference has to be made to the language of the enactment, the object and subject-matter of the statute and the nature and character of the act sought to be punished.
The bringing of gold into India is unlawful unless permitted by the Reserve Bank,—unlike as under the Singapore Ordinance, where an entry was not unlawful unless it was prohibited by an order made by the Minister. In the circumstances, therefore, mens rea, which was held to be an essential ingredient of the offence of a contravention of a Minister's order under the Ordinance, cannot obviously be deduced in the context of the reverse position obtaining under the Act.
State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, 1965(1) CrLJ 641 : 1965 AIR (SC) 722 : 1965 (1) SCR 123
Mens rea—Necessity of proof—Regulation of private activity in vulnerable area of public health—Only actus reus is required to be proved—The law denies a businessman to rob the health of a consumer.
Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and others, 1974 CrLJ 313 : 1974 AIR (SC) 228 : 1974 (2) SCR 154 : 1974 (1) SCC 167
Gulshan Tanwar
(Expert) 13 April 2011
Mens rea—Proof of—Necessity of—Adulteration of food articles—Sale by servant—He is liable for conviction without any proof of mens rea as the Statute itself render every person selling adulterated food, liable.
In a prosecution for an offence pertaining to the sale of any adulterated article of food, it is no defence merely to allege that the vendor was ignorant of the nature of the substance or quality of the food sold by him. Such a defence can only succeed if the person charged with selling adulterated food proves that the article of food was purchased as of the same in nature substance and quality as that demanded by the purchaser with a written warranty in the prescribed form, that he had no reasons to believe at the time when he sold it that the food was not of such nature, substance, and quality and that he sold it in the same state as he purchased it, and he submits to the food inspector or the local authority a copy of the warranty with a written notice that he intends to rely upon it and specifies the name and address of the person from whom he received it. Prohibition of sale of adulterated food is evidently imposed in the larger interest of maintenance of public health.
If the owner of a shop in which adulterated food is sold is without proof of mens realiable to be punished for sale of adulterated food, we fail to appreciate why an agent or a servant of the owner is not liable to be punished for contravention of the same provision unless he is shown to have guilty knowledge.
Sarjoo Prasad v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 1961 AIR SC 631 : 1961(1) CrLJ 747 : 1961(3) SCR 324 : 1961(1) Andh WR (SC) 133 : 1961(1) Ker LR 396 : 1961 Mad LJ (Cri) 284
Mens rea—Proof of—Necessity of—Guilty knowledge is not necessary in respect of quasi criminal act by which a prohibition is imposed in public interest.
The principal classes of exceptions may perhaps be reduced to three. One is a class of acts which are not criminal in any real sense, but are acts which in the public interest are prohibited under a penalty. Another class comprehends some, and perhaps all, public nuisances. Lastly, there may be cases in which, although the proceedings is criminal in form, it is really only a summary mode of enforcing a civil right. But, except in such cases as these, there must in general be guilty knowledge on the part of the defendant, or of some one whom he has put in his place to act for him, generally, or in the particular matter, in order to constitute an offence.
Section 35(1) of the Act creates a quasi-criminal offence. It is a regulatory provision. It is enacted with a view to safeguard the interest of the public regarding trust money. The offence in question is punishable only with fine. The conviction under that does not carry any stigma. The language of the provision appears to make its contravention an absolute liability. Under these circumstances, we think the offence mentioned in that section is an absolute one. Consequently we cannot read into it the requirement of mens rea.
The State of Gujarat and another v. Acharya Shri Devendraprasadji Pande and others, 1971 CrLJ 760
Mens rea—Proof of—Necessity of—Intent or knowledge of offence— Prosecution for violation of Motor Spirit Rationing Order, 1941 issued under Defence of India Rules—Violation of Order by a servant—The Rationing Order clearly providing the supplier to be responsible—Absence of guilty mind by the supplier does not exonerate the supplier from the liability of compliance of the Order even though he cannot be held to be vicariously liable for criminal act committing by his servants.
Unless a statute either clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, the deft, should not be held guilty of an offence under the criminal law unless he has a guilty mind.
Clause 27A, as we have already seen thrown the responsibility for making the necessary endorsement on the supplier. The definition of the word `supplier' in the Act has already been quoted, and there can be no doubt that if Clause 27A is contravened, a person who comes within the definition of the word `supplier' must be held guilty of the contravention. The object of this clause clearly is that the supplier of petrol should set up a complete machinery to ensure that the necessary endorsements are made on the coupons against which petrol is supplied. It is conceivable that in many cases the default will be committed by the servants of the supplier, who are in charge of the petrol pump, but that fact by itself will not exonerate the supplier from liability.
Ravula Hariprasada Rao v. The State, 1951 AIR SC 204 : 1951 CrLJ 768 : 1951 SCR 322 : 1951(1) Mad LJ 612 : 1951 All LJ (SC) 55
Mens rea—Proof of—No explanation for unnatural conduct shows guilty conscious of accused.
After returning from Muzaffar Nagar in the evening of 17th Nov. 1976, the accused instead of staying in his house, stayed in Venus Hotel in Paharganj, New Delhi under a false and assumed name of Vinod Kumar and made the entries in the Hotel register in his own hand. This shows the guilty conscience of the accused.
Ram Avtar v. The State (Delhi Administration), 1985 CrLJ 1865 : 1985 AIR (SC) 1692 : 1985 SCC (Cr) 415 : 1985 CrLR (SC) 444 : 1985 CAR 248
yogesh
(Expert) 13 April 2011
prosecutor have to prove it
Sri Vijayan.A
(Expert) 14 April 2011
All types of definition in all the possible views have been given by Expert Gulshan
