INDIAN PENAL CODE- II

Project on
Case Analysis: Nathulal vs State of Madhya Pradesh

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I express my gratitude and deep regards to my teachers for the subject, Dr. … for letting me take
on such a challenging topic and also for their exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant
encouragement throughout the course of this project. I also take this opportunity to express a
deep sense of gratitude to my seniors in the college for their cordial support, valuable
information and guidance, which helped me in completing this task through various stages.
INTRODUCTION

Mens rea or criminal intent is an essential element of every crime. There must be a mind at
fault to constitute a criminal act. It is the combination of an act and an evil intent that
distinguishes civil from criminal liability. There is generally nothing wrong in a mere act by
which I mean conscious movement of the body. For instance, there is nothing wrong in mere
movements that constitute an act of shooting. There is nothing wrong in shooting a bird or a
rabbit. But if you shoot with the intent to kill a human being under circumstances that afford
no legal justification for the act, you are guilty of murder.

The definition of offences generally contains reference to an evil intent which must be
present in order to hold one guilty of the said offence. Even when the definition is silent
regarding intent, it has been held that on general principles an evil intent must be imported
into definition of all strictly criminal offences. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, “the act
itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention was so,” is a doctrine as old as criminal
law itself. It is not an artificial principle grafted on any particular system of laws, but is a
doctrine of universal application based on man’s moral sense.

Mens rea is an essential element or ingredient of crime, though an universally accepted

principle, is not without its limitations. In the last few decades, an entire range of social or
public welfare legislation would have conceived in such a manner that the law makes the
mere omission or commission of acts punishable. The necessity for mens rea has been
dispensed with in respect of social or public welfare legislations. All these laws have been
framed for the larger good of the society. Insisting upon the existence of mens rea to punish
persons for violation of these enactments, may frustrate the purpose of the Acts and the
objects for which they have been enacted.

Courts have held that mens rea, as an essential element, is so much so an integral part of the
definition of crime itself that it needs no specific mention. A court has to presume its
requirement for imposing criminal liability, unless a statute, expressly or by necessary
implication, excludes mens rea. Its exclusion cannot be inferred simply because a statute
intends to combat grave social evil or to attain socio-economic welfare.
4|Page