1

DAMMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SABBAVARAM, VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA

PROJECT TITLE:

“GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW”

NAME OF THE SUBJECT:

CRIMINAL LAW

NAME OF THE FACULTY

PROF. DR. BHAVANI PRASAD PANDA

NAME OF THE CANDIDATE: M. SWETCHCHA

ROLL NO : 2019LLB089
SEMESTER : IIISEMESETER

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
 2

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher, Prof. .Dr .Bhavani
Prasad Panda sir, who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the
topic “GENERAL PRINCIPALS OF CRIMINAL LAW .”, which helped me in doing a
lot of research and I came to know about so many new things and I am really thankful to my
professor.

I am doing this project not only for marks but also to increase my knowledge. I have tried my
best to collect information about the project in various possible ways to depict the clear
picture about the given project topic.

TABLE OF CONTACTS
 3

 ACKNOWLDGEMENT …………………………………2

 ABSTRACT……………………………………………….4

 SYNOPSIS………………………………………………...5

 INTRODUCTION……………………………………….7

 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CRIME ……………... 8

 MENS REA……………………………………………10

 CASES IN MENS REA…………………………………18

 ACTUS REUS…………………………………………...23

 CONCLUSION…………………………………………….25

 BIBLOGRAPHY……………………………………………..27
 4

ABSTRACT

SUBJECT : CRIMINAL LAW

TOPIC : GENERAL PRINCIPELS OF CRIMINAL LAW

INTRODUCTION :

A person is cant usually be held a guilty of criminal offence except two offences elements
are present an Actus Reus , which means a guilty act ; and Mens rea, which is Latin for
guilty mind. Both of these elements have very specific meaning and they actually refer to
more than just moral guilt which varies according to the crime, but the vital thing to
remember is that to be a guilty of an offence.

An accused must not only have behaved in particular way i.e. Actus Reus but must also
usually have had a specific mental approach to that behavior i .e. Mens rea. A small group
of offences known as crimes of strict liability is exception to this rule.
 5

SYNOPSIS

TOPIC : GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

INTRODUCTION :

General principles of criminal law means i.e. Actus Reus and Mens sit rea and analaisation
of this two discussed in this project.

SCOPE OF THE PROJECT :

The scope of the project is limited to complete information of general principles of criminal
law that includes Actus Reus and mens sit rea explanation with relevant case laws.

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY :

To know how these principles impact the criminals and acts and the society.

REASERCH QUESTIONS :

 When these Actus Reus help to defend a person in a crime ?

 In which situation a person get punishment through mens sit rea ?

REASERCH METHODOLOGY :

The researcher is doing doctrinal type of study in this project .

 6

HYPOTHESIS :

There is a lot of importance for general principles of criminal law in today’s law

LITERATURE REVIEW :

For gathering of information regarding the topic of general principles of criminal law the
researcher would rely upon both the “ primary’’ and “ secondary” data for the research .
Mainly books and online resources would be given a major importance.

CONCLUSION :

I would like to conclude this project with the help of some case laws and I would like to
give the explanation of the general principles of criminal law.
 7

 INTRODUCTION :

Crime may be defined as an act or omission, which is the society has of thought fit to punish
or otherwise deal with under it laws for the time being in force. The different acts and or
omissions so punishable under the law are known as crimes . Black stone defined crime as
“an act committed or omitted in violation of public law forbidding or commanding it’’.
According to Glanville Williams “ a crime is a legal wrong that can be followed by criminal
proceedings which may result in punishment’’.

Professor Kenny defined crimes in the following terms . “ Crimes is a harmful human
conduct that sovereign desires to prevent’’. Salmond defines crime as “ an act deemed by
law o be harmful to society in general even though its immediate victim is an individual’’.
John Austin defines crime “ a wrong which is pursued by the sovereign or his subordinates is
a crime. Professor SW Keeton has stated that , “ A crime today would seem to be any
undesirable act, which the state finds most convenient to correct by the institution of
proceedings for the infliction of a penalty, instead of leaving the remedy to the discretion of
some injured person.

Crime is a serious anti social action to which the state reacts consciously by inflicting
pain . On crimes says that crime is the result of human conduct which the penal policy of
the state seeks to prevent. This deviation or breach is punished by society by means of its
sanction . But punishment is no only the criterion of value. Religion , art, education and
other sociological agencies also reveal value . Crime is an act in violation of the law and the
criminal law is a person who does an act in violation of the law.1

1
Sellin T, culture conflict and crime pp, 32-33
 8

 ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CRIME :

The cardinal principle of criminal law is contained is the maxim “ actus non facit
reum , nisi mens sit rea ”. It means an act does not make a person guilty of a crime
unless the mind is also a guilty.

The general rule of English law states that a person will be criminally liable if he
has committed a prohibited act , which is by a certain state of mind . Clearly , there
is a difference between an accident which cause injury and deliberate act which
injures another . The difference may not be in the act, but in the state mind of the
actor . However , certain crimes do not require any particular state of mind . These
crimes are classified as liability offences . They are an exception to the requirement
of mens rea.

Often, in criminal law , a crime is committed when there is a combination of actus

reus and mens rea . The actus reus for each crime must be established . It is not
enough that mens rea for the crime was present , if actus reus was not committed
as well . The main reason for this is that criminal law insists on some expression of
someone’s criminal thoughts through their actions before it will intervene to punish
them . Moreover, there is no criminal liability for possessing a particular state of
mind. Mens Rea and deliberate conduct by the accused is essential to constitute
offence.

A small group of offences known as crimes of strict liability is exception to this

rule . The prosecution has to prove both of these elements so that the magistrates
doubt of their existence , if this is not done, the person will be acquitted , as in
English law all persons are persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty 2

2
Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462 HL (E)
 9

 Human being :

The first element requires that the wrongful act must be committed by a human being. In
ancient times, when criminal law was largely dominated by the idea of retribution,
punishments were inflicted on animals also for the injury caused by them, for example, a pig
was burnt in Paris for having devoured a child, a horse was killed for having kicked a man.
But now, if an animal causes an injury we hold not the animal liable but its owner liable for
such injury.

So the first element of crime is a human being who- must be under the legal obligation to act
in a particular manner and should be a fit subject for awarding appropriate
punishment.Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code provides that word ‘person’ includes a
company or association or body of persons whether incorporated or not. The word ‘person’
includes artificial or juridical persons.

 Mens Rea :

The second important essential element of a crime is mens rea or evil intent or guilty mind.
There can be no crime of any nature without mens rea or an evil mind. Every crime requires a
mental element and that is considered as the fundamental principle of criminal liability. The
basic requirement of the principle mens rea is that the accused must have been aware of those
elements in his act which make the crime with which he is charged.

There is a well known maxim in this regard, i.e. “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”
which means that, the guilty intention and guilty act together constitute a crime. It comes
 10

from the maxim that no person can be punished in a proceeding of criminal nature unless it
can be showed that he had a guilty mind.

 Actus Reus :

The third essential element of a crime is actus reus. In other words, some overt act or illegal
omission must take place in pursuance of the guilty intention. Actus reus is the manifestation
of mens rea in the external world. Prof. Kenny was the first writer to use the term ‘actus
reus’. He has defined the term thus- “such result of human conduct as the law seeks to
prevent”.

 Injury :

The fourth requirement of a crime is injury to another person or to the society at large. The
injury should be illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property as
according to Section 44 of IPC, 1860 the injury denotes any harm whatever illegally caused
to any person in body, mind, reputation or property.

 MENS REA :

Mens rea is a Latin term which essentially means “guilty mind”. Mens rea is the most
important distinguishing element which attaches great importance to the state of mind of the
accused person at the time of the commission of a crime.
 11

It is important to note that no act is criminal by itself unless it is accompanied by a mens rea.
This is best represented by the common law maxim; Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,
which translates to “the act is not guilty unless the mind is guilty”.

Unless the accused can be proven to have acted with criminal intent he cannot be held liable
under the criminal law. Criminal liability requires the presence of mens rea necessarily
whereas under civil law proof of injury is sufficient to attract liability.

 Constituent elements of Mens rea

i. The mental condition of an accused person stems from his thought process
consisting of motive and volition.

ii. The motive is not to be confused with intention as a motive is a reason for
intention. All intentions and actions are preceded by some motive.

iii. Volition is the driving force that impels a person to develop some intention in
order to achieve the desired motive. So volition serves as the link between motive
and intention which are reflective of the ulterior and immediate objective
respectively in the commission of an act.

iv. The presence of motive supports the prosecution case but the absence of motive
doesn’t weaken it. The prosecution may prove the motive behind the crime if it
 12

helps them to establish their case, as a matter of circumstantial evidence, but they
are not legally bound to prove motive because “a motiveless crime is still a
crime”.

v. Under criminal law presence of intention which is a subjective fact is more

important than motive and is to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of
the case.

vi. The presence of a good motive does not protect the accused person where the act
itself is unlawful and similarly the presence of bad motive is not sufficient to
punish an accused where the act is not an illegal act. For eg. If someone takes
money from another with a good intention but without consent, the act would still
amount to theft.

 Degrees of Mens rea

i. Mens rea is a blameworthy condition of mind constituted by the intent or purpose
and knowledge of consequences.

ii. The degree of mens rea indicates the degree of mental involvement in the crime
and bears a direct relation to the culpability attached to any crime.
 13

iii. Higher the degree of mens rea in a crime higher would be the punishment attached
to the same. For example an act of intentionally killing a human being, which
would constitute the offence of murder would attract the highest punishment
under law owing to the highest degree of mens rea associated with the same, on
the other hand, if a person accidentally hits someone resulting in such person’s
death then he would not be liable for any crime in the absence of mens rea on his
part.

 General Intent :

General intent crimes require that the defendant had the intention to commit an illegal act.
All that is needed conviction is an intent to commit the act that constitute the crime.
General intent exists when the illegal act may reasonably be expected to follow from an
offender’s voluntary act even without any specific intent by the offender. To prove general
intent, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant acted intentionally in the sense
that he was aware of what he was doing.

For, general intent crimes, the very doing of acts that have been declared criminal shows
the criminal intent necessary to sustain a conviction. For example, a defendant can be
convicted for the illegal skinning of an alligator if he is merely in possession of an alligator
that was not appropriately skinned. This is because a jury may infer the required general
intent merely from the doing of the act. Some examples of general intent crimes are the
following:

 Rape
 14

 Battery
 False imprisonment
 Kidnapping

 Specific Intent

Specific intent designates a special mental element that is above and beyond any mental
state required with respect to the actus reus of the crime 3. Specific intent is a term used
to describe of a state mind that exists where a defendant objectively desired a specific
result to follow this act. The prosecution must prove that the defendant acted with the
intent to achieve a specific goal as well as the intent to commit the illegal acts.

Specific intent cannot be inferred from the commission of the act and specific proof is
required to demonstrate that this element is satisfied. Conspiracy is an example of a crime
requiring the mens rea to be specific intent. The general federal conspiracy statue
provides, if two or more persons conspire to commit any offense against the United States
. . . each shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or
both.’ 18 U.S.C. § 371. ‘[T]he specific intent required for the crime of conspiracy is in fact
the intent to advance or further the unlawful object of the conspiracy.’

Other examples of specific intent crimes are:

 Attempt

3
People v. Hood, 462 P.2d 370 , 378 (Cal. 1969)
 15

 Assault

 First degree premeditated murder

 Burglary

 False pretenses

 Criminal Negligence and Recklessness:

There are also crimes that require neither specific nor general intent. A prosecutor can secure
a conviction by demonstrating that the defendant acted recklessly or negligently. Both
recklessness and criminal negligence may exist when the defendant acted with a gross lack of
care without paying attention to the unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result
will occur. Recklessness is a higher level of guilt than criminal negligence. Both negligence
standards and the possible criminal charges stemming from criminal negligence vary state to
state.

Even though there are variations, the defendant’s mental state must be of such a nature and to
such a risky degree that the failure to perceive the risks of his actions constitutes a gross
deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise. Unlike general or
specific criminal intent, criminal negligence is negative, meaning it does not require an
affirmative act by the defendant.
 16

An example of a conviction based on a showing of recklessness occurred in a case involving

drag racing.4 The defendant was convicted of negligent homicide as the result of illegal drag
racing, where speeds were at least forty miles per hour over the speed limit. After two
vehicles engaged in such reckless driving, there was a crash and a fatality. The prosecution
successfully proved that the defendant’s mental state was reckless. In convicting the
defendant, the court reasoned that driving at those speeds while drag racing “exhibited such
disregard for the interest of others as to amount to a gross deviation below the standard of
care expected of a reasonably careful man.”

 Strict Liability :

There is another class of crimes referred to as strict liability crimes. Strict liability crimes,
also known as public welfare offenses, are crimes that do not require mens rea. The defendant
could be found guilty merely because he committed the act. Some examples of crimes that
fall into the strict liability category are:

 Statutory rape

 Selling alcohol to minors

 Bigamy

4
State v Martin, 539 So 2d 1235, 1238(La. 1989).
 17

Statutory rape is a strict liability crime because even if the offender believed their partner was
of consenting age, he is still guilty of committing the crime so long as the victim is under a
certain age. These laws, even though very severe, are intended to protect certain classes of
individuals from certain kinds of conduct.5 Determining whether a crime is a strict liability
crime depends on the state legislature’s intention.

 Negligence :

Every individual is supposed to exercise a minimum degree of care and caution while doing
any act. When the conduct of any individual is found to be lacking in respect of the due care
or precautions required to be taken when such a person is said to be negligent .Negligence is
characterized chiefly by inadvertence, thoughtlessness, and inattention .Negligence under law
implies the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those ordinary
considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do or the doing of something
which a reasonable and prudent man would not do.

Negligence is the failure to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful person would
use under similar circumstances. Negligence refers to the conduct which falls below the
standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm.

5
People v. Travers, 124 Cal. Rptr. 728, 730 (1975).
 18

The jurisprudential concept of negligence differs in civil law and criminal law. What may be
negligence in civil law may not necessarily be negligence in criminal law. For an act to
amount to criminal negligence, the degree of negligence should be much higher i.e., gross or
of a very high degree. Negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher degree may provide a
ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis of prosecution under criminal law.

 CASES RELATED TO MENS REA:

 R. vs. Prince (1875 LR 2 CCR 154)

Facts

Henry Prince loved Annie Philips, an unmarried minor girl. He took away her with an
intention to marry her. The father of girl reported to the police against Henry Prince
alleging that Prince had illegally taken away his minor girl, below the age of 16 years.
The Police arrested Henry Prince and filed criminal proceedings against him. Henry
Prince was tried for having unlawfully taken away an unmarried girl below the age of 16
years, out of the lawful possession and against the will of her father/the natural guardian.

The accused contended that he was under the belief that she completed 18 years. He also
contended that the girl herself told him about her age was more than 18 years. The accused
also argued that he had no mens rea (ill intention).
 19

Judgement :

Jury found upon evidence that before the defendant took her away the girl had told him that
she was 18. However Jury held that the accused’s belief about the age of the girl was no
defence.It was argued that the statute did not insist on the knowledge of the accused that the
girl was under 16 as necessary for conviction, and that the Doctrine of Mens Rea, should
nevertheless, be applied and conviction be set aside in the option of criminal intention. 16
Judges tried the case and all but one unanimously held that Henry Prince was guilty of
kidnapping.

Principles:

A mixed question of fact and law was treated as a question of fact, if the accused was misled
into an aware of fact on account of an error of law. The jury formulated certain important
rules, while disposing this case:

i. That when an act is in itself plainly criminal, and is more severely punishable if
certain circumstances co-exist, ignorance of the existence of such circumstances is
no answer to a charge for the aggravated offence.

ii. That where an act is prima facie innocent and proper, unless certain
circumstances co-exist, then ignorance of such circumstance is an answer to the
charge.
 20

iii. That the state of the defendant’s mind must amount to absolute ignorance of the
existence of the circumstances which alters the character of the act, or to a belief
in its non existence.

iv. Where an act which is in itself wrong, under certain circumstances, criminal/a
person who does the wrong act cannot set up as a defence that he was ignorant of
the facts which turned the wrong into a crime.

v. Where a statute makes it penal to do an act under certain circumstances, it is a

question upon the wording and object of the particular statute whether the
responsibility of ascertaining that the circumstances exist is thrown upon the
person who does the act or not. In the former case his knowledge is immaterial.

 R. vs. Tolson (1889 23 QBD 168

Facts :

The accused was tried under Section 57 of the Offences against the Persons Act, 1861
(similar provision in India is Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) for having
committed the offence of bigamy.Under that Section, it was an offence for a married person
to contract a second marriage during the life time of the husband or wife, as the case may be.
In this case, Mrs. Tolson married in 1880.In 1881, Mr. Tolson deserted her and went away.
She made all possible enquiries about him and ultimately came to know that her husband Mr.
Tolson died in a ship accident in America.
 21

Therefore, supposing herself to be a widow, she married another man in 1887. The whole
story was known to the second husband and the marriage was not secrecy.In the meantime,
Mr. Tolson suddenly re-appeared and prosecuted Mrs. Tolson for bigamy. In the trial Court,
she was convicted for imprisonment on the ground that a belief in good faith and on
reasonable facts about the death of husband was no defence to the charge of bigamy. She
appealed to the Court of Appeal. he question before the Court of Appeal was whether Mrs.
Tolson had guilty intention (mens rea) in committing the offence of bigamy.

Judgement :

The Court of Appeal by majority set aside the conviction on the ground that a bona fide belief
about the death of the It also opined that the statutory limitation for the second marriage of
seven years was completed at the time of her second marriage and she informed the real facts
to the second husband. Hence it acquitted the accused. First husband at the time of second
marriage was a good defence in the offence of bigamy.

 R. vs. Wheat and Stock (1921) 2 KB 119):

Facts :
 22

In this case, the accused/an uneducated man handed over his case to his solicitor for obtaining
divorce from his first wife. He believed that as soon as he handed over his case to his
solicitor, he obtained divorce from his first wife.

Believing it in good faith, he married another lady. The first wife prosecuted him. He pleaded
that he did not know the procedure of law and he believed that he obtained the divorce and
with bona fide intention he married another lady.

Judgement :

The Court did not accept his version, and convicted him for the offence for bigamy on the
ground that reasonable belief about the dissolution of marriage would be no defence to the
charge of bigamy, unless the divorce would be obtained from a Court of law.

Principles :

i. Two cases, i.e., Tolson and Wheat cases are quite distinct from each other. In
Tolson’s case, it was a mistake of fact. In Wheat’s case, it was a mistake of law.
Mr. Wheat did an act which was forbidden by law, whereas Mrs. Tolson had no
such intention.

ii. The Doctrine of Mens Rea was re-surrected and made applicable not only to
common law offences, but also to all statutory offences.
 23

iii. There is a presumption that mens rea or evil intention or knowledge of the
wrongfulness of the act is an essential ingredient in every offence.

 ACTUS REUS :

In determining whether a person committed a crime, there are two issues to consider: the
person’s state of mind, or intent, and the actual physical act of committing the crime. The
Latin term actus reus refers to the actual act of doing the illegal thing, with no reference to
the person’s mental state. In order for a person to be convicted of having committed a crime,
it must be proven that he engaged in some physical act, or took action, to do so. To explore
this concept, consider the following actus reus definition.

The legal term actus reus, as used in modern times, stems from the 16th century writings of
Sir Edward Coke, in which he stated actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means “an
act does not make a person guilty unless [his] mind is also guilty.” This concept is the basis
of today’s legal test of guilt, which requires proof of fault, or culpability, in both thought and
deed.

 Lack of intent or Physical act :

Mark was the victim of fraud, and Bill has been accused of the crime. Leading up to the
incident at hand, Bill had sold his car to a man who paid him with a check. Bill deposited the
check, then turned around and hired Mark to repair the plumbing in his bathroom, paying him
 24

with a personal check. A day after Mark had deposited Bill’s check, it bounced, causing a
number of his own payments to bounce, resulting in a whole slew of bank fees.

When Mark asked Bill to pay him in cash, and to pay all of his bounced check fees, Bill was
simply unable to do so. He was a victim himself of the man who defrauded him out of his car.
Mark takes the bounced check to the District Attorney (“DA”), who considers whether
criminal charges should be pressed, but Mark 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 Bill intended (mens rea) to bilk Mark out of his hard-earned
money, nor did any actual action taken by Bill (actus reus) amount to a crime. Although Mark
has the right to demand payment from Bill, and can file a civil lawsuit if necessary, this
example of actus reus means that only the man who originally defrauded Bill out of his car,
actually acted in an illegal manner.

 Knowledge :

Information means mindfulness, information on the sureness of the impact. An individual

demonstrations purposely when he is basically sure of the outcomes. Information is the
 25

second most significant level of mens rea after the goal. It draws in marginally lesser
culpability where it exists autonomous of goal. Under the law, each sensible and normal
individual is dared to know the nature and outcomes of his activities. Some level of
information is credited to each rational individual.

The level of information which a specific individual can be expected to have differs. For
example, a similar level of information can't be credited to a uninformed as an informed
individual. Be that as it may, somewhat information should be ascribed to every individual
who is normal. Accordingly in the event that somebody does a demonstration, he can't be
permitted to argue that he didn't know about the outcomes that his demonstration may
involve.

 CONCLUSION :

Figuring out what lead comprises a wrongdoing ordinarily requires an assessment of the
particulars of the applicable arrangements of the criminal code or legal arrangements (a
couple of offenses in English law have not been characterized in resolution). Notwithstanding
contrasts of structure and detail, there are a few general standards of criminal law that are
broadly found across criminal-equity frameworks.
 26

One widely accepted principle of criminal law is the rule against retrospective action, which
prohibits the imposition of former post-procedural laws (i.e., laws that allow a person to be
punished for criminal conduct while it was committed). This rule restricts the power of
judges to declare new offenses (although it is not necessary to expand the scope of the old
ones by explanation).

One of the most important public principles of criminal law is that a person cannot usually be
convicted of a crime without wanting to commit the act in question. With a few exceptions,
since the law itself is not an excuse for ignorant criminal behavior, the individual does not
need to know that this act is a crime. Therefore, if a person believes that an act is perfectly
legal and deliberately commits that act, the legal requirement of the criminal purpose is met.

Criminal liability applies not only to those who commit criminal acts, but also to aiding and
abetting an offender by knowingly or knowingly assisting the commission of such act (e.g.,
by providing information, tools, or practical assistance). In fact the perpetrators of crime (e.g.,
the use of a deadly assault weapon) are often called principals in the first degree; Assistants at
the time of the commission of the crime (e.g., catching the victim when the principal assaults
in the first degree) and principals in the second degree; Those who assisted before the crime
took place (e.g., by providing a weapon or by providing information) are parts of the truth.
 27

Most legal systems categorize crimes for different purposes related to the procedures of the
courts, such as assigning different types of courts to different types of courts. Misdemeanors
and confiscation of the offender's land and belongings to the crown - usually punishable by a
fine or imprisonment. The proceedings of the court differ considerably in terms of the charge
against the defendant. The police had the power to arrest a person on suspicion of having
committed a crime, among other things, depending on the difference, which is usually
allowed in the worst cases, but not in the wrongdoings. (See bad and wrong action.)

 BIBLOGRAPHY:

 www.britannica.com
 Legaldictionary.net
 . the freedom.com
28