Means rea and actus rea

A crime is a moral wrong committed against the whole of society. It disturbs the peace, and some
crimes may cause widespread panic and disruption of normal community activities. The State bears
the burden of prosecuting a crime, while the prosecution bears the burden of proof. The State acts to
protect victims of crime and to keep the offender from committing further crimes, as well as to
provide justice to victims who have suffered. The state also takes steps to punish the offender. Most
countries have reformation programs in prison to help offenders become law-abiding, dutiful citizens
and most countries have reformation programs to help offenders become law-abiding, dutiful
citizens to control their crimes.

Mens rea and Actus Reus are two key characteristics of any crime and are employed in the majority
of common law nations. Mens rea is the 'guilty mentality' or guilty purpose to conduct a crime, to
cause harm to another person or animal, or to disrupt the peace. Actus Reus, on the other hand, is
the "guilty act," which is required to prove that criminal conduct was performed.

MENS REA

Mens Rea, or "guilty mentality," is a fundamental aspect of criminal law. Damage produced without
mens rea may give rise to civil culpability, but not criminal liability. Criminal responsibility involves
not only the commission of prohibited injury or evil (the "actus reus" of an offense) but also a certain
state of mind in the commission of such hurt or evil. One cause of misunderstanding stems from the
phrase's usage in two different contexts: broadly and narrowly. In its broadest definition, "mens rea"
refers to a person's blameworthiness, or more accurately, the elements that constitute a person's
breach sufficiently blameworthy to warrant a criminal conviction. In this wide meaning, the word
refers to all criminal law theories of blameworthiness, including both mental prerequisites of an act
and excusing defenses such as insanity, immaturity, and duress, to mention a few. The contemporary
definition of mens rea, as used in law today, is more limited: Mens rea refers to the state of mind or
inattention that the criminal law defines as a crime when combined with the following behavior.

Case Laws

 R v Moloney (1985)

At a dinner party, the defendant and his stepfather consumed a substantial amount of alcohol. They
held a debate about weapons and a shooting contest to determine who could load and discharge a
shotgun the fastest. The defendant did this while ignorant that the pistol was aimed at the victim,
killing his stepfather. The accused was charged with murder. On appeal, the House of Lords
overturned the murder conviction and substituted a manslaughter judgment, arguing that only
intending to kill or cause truly significant damage would be sufficient Mens rea for murder.

 R v Hancock and Shankland 

A striker threw a concrete block from a bridge onto a road, killing a cab driver. On appeal, the House
of Lords substituted a manslaughter finding, reaffirming that the prosecution must demonstrate the
defendant's intent to kill or cause severe bodily injury.

 R v Woolling

When the defendant became enraged, he tossed his three-month-old infant against a hard surface.
His son died as a result of a skull fracture. Woolly was arrested and charged with murder. He denied
that he intended to do substantial injury. In light of the mental element in murder, the House of
Lords concluded that a jury was necessary to establish whether the defendant meant to kill or cause
grievous bodily damage. The murder conviction was overturned, and a manslaughter conviction was
substituted.

Actus Reus

Actus Reus is the physical aspect of a crime. The accused needs to have done something or omitted
to do something, resulting in injury to the plaintiff, or the victim in civil cases. Without a guilty act,
there can be no crime and no suit for damages can arise. An act alone does not make a crime,
however, and both the intention of the person and the act itself, if such act is prohibited, combine to
form the crime. In other situations, the facts of the case are also considered and are frequently
utilized to either definitively show guilt or to demonstrate reasonable doubt of purpose.

There are three constituent parts, namely –

 Conduct
 Injury
 Prohibited by Law

Characteristics of Actus Reus are as follows:

1. Voluntary:
o The overt act or omission has to be voluntary (must be done of its own free will). If
the actus reus is the result of an involuntary (beyond the person’s control or
automatism) or forced act, then it may fall under the General Exceptions given under
Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
o An example of an involuntary act would be any reflex action or even epilepsy. In
order to determine whether an act or omission was voluntary or not, the
circumstances (injury caused, means employed, etc.) of the case are being looked
into.
2. Act must be prohibited by law:
o For an act to constitute criminal liability, it must be prohibited by law. If this was not
the case, every normal action undertaken would also constitute to be a criminal act.
o For example, using a knife to cut vegetables will not amount to actus reus however,
taking the same knife to stab a person in the heart would amount to actus reus.
3. Act must cause harm:
o The act of the accused should result or attempt to result, in some harm to the social
interests of another, and accordingly, punishment will be granted.
 o It must be noted that the harm caused or attempted to be caused must be the direct
consequence of the act.

 Case Laws

 THE ACTUS REUS MUST BE VOLUNTARY

R v Quick [1973]

The diabetic defendant was accused of attacking his victim. The attack occurred when the defendant
was suffering from hypoglycemia (low blood sugar level due to an excess of insulin). The defendant
should have been acquitted due to automatism, according to the court. His unconscious state had
been caused by external influences, such as the administration of insulin.

“STATE OF AFFAIRS” CASES (ACTUS REUS)

R v Larsonneur (1933)

The defendant was a French national who had entered the UK legally but had been granted only
restricted permission to stay. The defendant left England at the conclusion of that term, not to return
to France, but to proceed to the Irish Free State. The Irish authorities issued a deportation order
against her, and she was deported from Ireland and returned to the United Kingdom. When the
defendant arrived in England, he was charged under the Aliens Order 1920 with "being discovered"
in the country without authorization. The defendant was convicted and appealed because her return
to the UK was not of her own will since she had been transported to England by immigration
authorities. The Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal on the basic grounds that the prosecution had
established all of the facts required for a conviction.

Conclusion

n account of the present-

day (modern) statutory
offenses, the maxim has
no broad application and
the rules are to be
viewed as themselves
prescribing the
psychological component
which is pre-imperative
to a
conviction. So Mens
Rea is a basic
component of a crime
in each penal
statute except if the
equivalent either
explicitly or by
necessary
implications are precluded
by the statutes.
Further, it isn’t totally
right to state that the
Doctrine of Mens Rea
is
Inapplicable to the offense
under the Indian Penal
Code. What the Indian
Penal Code requires
isn’t an invalidation of
Mens Rea, but Mens
Rea of a
particular kind and this
varies from offense to
offense
n account of the present-
day (modern) statutory
offenses, the maxim has
no broad application and
the rules are to be
viewed as themselves
prescribing the
psychological component
which is pre-imperative
to a
conviction. So Mens
Rea is a basic
component of a crime
in each penal
statute except if the
equivalent either
explicitly or by
necessary
implications are precluded
by the statutes.
Further, it isn’t totally
right to state that the
Doctrine of Mens Rea
is
Inapplicable to the offense
under e Indian Penal
Code. What the Indian
Penal Code requires
isn’t an invalidation of
Mens Rea, but Mens
Rea of a
particular kind and this
varies from offense to
offense
n account of the present-
day (modern) statutory
offenses, the maxim has
no broad application and
the rules are to be
viewed as themselves
prescribing the
psychological component
which is pre-imperative
to a
conviction. So Mens
Rea is a basic
component of a crime
in each penal
statute except if the
equivalent either
explicitly or by
necessary
implications are precluded
by the statutes.
Further, it isn’t totally
right to state that the
Doctrine of Mens Rea
is
Inapplicable to the offense
under the Indian Penal
Code. What the Indian
Penal Code requires
isn’t an invalidation of
Mens Rea, but Mens
Rea of a
particular kind and this
varies from offense to
offence
n account of the present-
day (modern) statutory
offenses, the maxim has
no broad application and
the rules are to be
viewed as themselves
prescribing the
psychological component
which is pre-imperative
to a
conviction. So Mens
Rea is a basic
component of a crime
in each penal
statute except if the
equivalent either
explicitly or by
necessary
implications are precluded
by the statutes.
Further, it isn’t totally
right to state that the
Doctrine of Mens Rea
is
Inapplicable to the offense
under the Indian Penal
Code. What the Indian
Penal Code requires
isn’t an invalidation of
Mens Rea, but Mens
Rea of a
particular kind and this
varies from offense to
offense
n account of the present-
day (modern) statutory
offenses, the maxim has
no broad application and
the rules are to be
viewed as themselves
prescribing the
psychological component
which is pre-imperative
to a
conviction. So Mens
Rea is a basic
component of a crime
in each penal
statute except if the
equivalent either
explicitly or by
necessary
implications are precluded
by the statutes.
Further, it isn’t totally
right to state that the
Doctrine of Mens Rea
is
Inapplicable to the offense
under the Indian Penal
Code. What the Indian
Penal Code requires
isn’t an invalidation of
Mens Rea, but Mens
Rea of a
particular kind and this
varies from offense to
offense
n account of the present-
day (modern) statutory
offenses, the maxim has
no broad application and
the rules are to be
viewed as themselves
prescribing the
psychological component
which is pre-imperative
to a
conviction. So Mens
Rea is a basic
component of a crime
in each penal
statute except if the
equivalent either
explicitly or by
necessary
implications are precluded
by the statutes.
Further, it isn’t totally
right to state that the
Doctrine of Mens Rea is
Inapplicable to the
offense under the Indian
Penal Code. What the
Indian
Penal Code requires
isn’t an invalidation of
Mens Rea, but Mens
Rea of a
particular kind and this
varies from offence to
offence
In the case of current (modern) statutory offenses, the maxim has no board applicability, and the
rules are considered as dictating the psychological component that is necessary for a conviction. So,
in every penal code, Mens Rea is a core component of a crime, unless the equivalent is explicitly or
by necessity specified. The statutes forbid any implications. Furthermore, it is incorrect to assert at
the Doctrine of Mens Rea does not apply to the offense under the Indian Penal Code. The Penal Code
demands not an invalidation of Mens Rea, but Mens Rea of a certain type, which differs from crime
to offence.