MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY MUMBAI

Mid Semester Examination – March, 2022

IV th Semester B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

Law of Crimes - I

Date & Time – 22 March 2022 Duration -

Enrolment No – 2020 149 Total Marks – 15

Instructions –

1. Type your answers on this sheet itself and upload it on the google classroom.

2. Word limit is 1000 words per answer.

3. Do not plagiarize the answers.

___________________________________________________________________________

Q. 1.

The Latin maxim ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ lay down the general principle of
criminal law. While citing relevant offences, explain at least four examples wherein this
maxim is followed and four examples wherein this maxim is followed. (10 Marks)

ANSWER –

The cardinal principle of criminal law is contained in 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 guilty.

1. Actus Reus:

A criminal act that describes a physical activity that harms another person or damages property.

Ex - person commits burglary when without authority he or she knowingly enters or without
authority remains within a building, housetrailer, watercraft, aircraft, motor vehicle, railroad car,
or any part thereof, with intent to commit therein a felony or theft.” To show that the actus
reus element is satisfied, the prosecution will have to prove that the defendant unlawfully
entered, or remained in, the building without authority, and that he intended to commit a felony
or steal therein.

The physical element in criminal liability can be assessed under the following heads:

1. No physical participation: Even if he did not physically participate in the act, a man can be
found completely accountable.

2. Where the participation is indirect: The actus reus is entirely assigned to anyone who has
done something that has caused or allowed a completely innocent individual to act in a way that
causes the harm in question.

3. Where another person has intervened: In some circumstances, it appears that the injury
could not have happened without the offender's act or omission, but he has been pardoned on the
basis that another person interjected and looked to be the more immediate and direct source of
damage.

4. Where victim’s own conduct has affected the result

5. Contributory negligence of the victim

2. Mens Rea

Mens rea means the evil intent or guilty state of the mind. It relates to the offender's
psychological condition or intention to achieve a predetermined outcome.

Ex - Imagine two drivers who end up hitting and killing a pedestrian. Driver 1 never saw the
person until it was too late, tried his or her best to brake, but could do nothing to stop the
accident and in fact ended up killing the pedestrian. Driver 1 is still liable, but likely only in civil
court for monetary damages.

Two tests have evolved to determine the mens rea in a particular case:
i. Whether the act in question is a voluntary act of the accused? (Section 39 of IPC defines
voluntarily)

ii. Whether the accused had foresight of the consequences of the conduct?

There are different degrees of mens rea.

Intention, Knowledge, Negligence:

3. Motive :

Motive is the psychological condition that drives a person to perform a specific action. For
instance, ambition, jealousy, fear, and so on. Motive is something which leads or tempts the
mind to indulge in an act or which compels the mind to do an act. motive is like a spring. It
pushes the intention further. In contrast, intention is the aim of the act.

Where actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is not followed:

Ignorance of law

Because every citizen and non-citizen is expected to be familiar with the laws of the country they
are in or visiting, ignorance of the law cannot be used as an excuse to commit a crime. As a
result, in such cases, the presence or absence of a purpose is ignored, making it an exception to
the norm.

Public nuisances

A public nuisance is a crime in which an act or omission obstructs, hurts, or disrupts the right of
the general public. It can also be defined as behaviour that puts the general public's interest or
comfort in jeopardy. In such cases, strong accountability is required because the public's interest
is at stake. As a result, whether or not there is a mental motive, these offences are punishable.

Petty offences
The least serious types of offences are petty offences. When it comes to small offences like
running a red light, establishing the mens rea behind the act might be difficult. As a result,
conduct like jumping a red light may be regarded criminal in such circumstances. As a result, the
general rule of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is broken.

Strict liability

Strict liability offences are those in which the prosecution does not need to show that the
defendant acted in a criminally motivated manner because the defendant's actions are sufficient
to prove the crime. The activities that fit within these categories are harmful to society and the
government. Rape, for example, is defined as an act of sexual intercourse without consent under
Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Even if mens rea is not required in this case, the
physical act alone is enough to convict a person under this rule.

_________________________________________________

Q. 2.

The boundary of civil - criminal is increasingly getting blurred. Evaluate this statement in
light of the Article by Andrew Ashworth, Is Criminal Law a Lost Cause? Based on what
Ashworth has said in the context of U.K., what parallels with Indian legal system be
drawn?

(10 Marks) (Note: Article is shared in Google Classroom).

ANSWER –

In this article Ashworth explains the major objective of damages, according to Ashworth, is to
compensate the sufferer for their loss, whereas the primary functions of punishment are punitive
and preventive. So in general, a civil court might award considerable damages while a criminal
court might impose a relatively mild sentence on conviction, and a civil court might award no
damages or a small sum when a criminal court would impose a severe penalty when dealing with
essentially the same set of facts. However, he says in actuality, the interplay between punishment
and compensation is more complicated, and the lines between them are blurring, particularly in
criminal instances.
He also stated that criminal courts have a prima facie obligation to order an offender to
compensate a victim who has incurred loss, damage, injury, or death.

Furthermore he says, It is also perfectly possible for a victim to sue the offender for damages
whether or not the offender has been convicted or even prosecuted, but the better view now is
that awarding punitive damages to a defendant who has already been convicted by a criminal
court for the same conduct would be wrong. While the option of awarding punitive damages is
compatible with the tort law's basic censuring purpose, the limitations on making such awards
illustrate that tort law must play second fiddle to criminal law in this regard.

The instances where hw said the blurred line are found are;

The first is found in intellectual property law, where civil remedies coexist with criminal
penalties.

A second example he gives is in competition law, where the Competition Act 1998 was designed
to provide a dual system for the regulation of trade competition, with civil financial penalties and
judicial cases taken by private parties to recover damages for losses caused by unfair
competition.

IN INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM

Equal treatment principle. The basic idea behind this theory is that persons who commit similar
major wrongs in similar circumstances should face similar punishment. This premise contrasts
with the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy's assessment on the workings of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act in Punjab, which was published in April 2018. The research drew
attention to the inequalities in sentencing given to defendants in pharmaceutical drug cases.

There have been examples of legal forms intertwining and blurring, as evidenced by legislation
such as intellectual property law and provisions such as Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881, which combine civil and criminal remedies. The functional distinction
between a criminal law action and a civil law proceeding is sometimes lost as a result of this
mutation of legal forms.
However, when a civil proceeding against a person is labelled as a civil proceeding with a
tendency to provide punishments such as detainment or that which is similar to a punitive action
under a criminal proceeding, the entire purpose of these protections for accused persons is
defeated, as they are frequently denied these fundamental protections primarily because they are
labelled as civil proceedings rather than criminal cases.

______________________________________________________________________________