School of legal studies department of law

COURSE TITLE: LAW OF CRIMES-1

COURSE CODE: IL-C-303

ASSIGNMENT ON: MENS REA

SUBMITTED BY:
NAME : MOHD FAIZ AHMED

ENROLL NO.: 2007CUKMR16

SEMESETER: 3rd
COURSE : BALLB (5YEARS)

EMAIL ID : FAIZGTA1@GMAIL.COM

SUBMITTED WITH REGARDS ,

TO,

PROF. DR. HILAL AHMED

DEPARTMENT OF LAW SCHOOL OF LEGAL STUDIES, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF
KASHMIR.
 Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1

How did Mens Rea developed ............................................................................................................... 1

The Concept Of Mens Rea In Indian Criminal Law.................................................................. 1-2

Types Of Mens Rea........................................................................................................................ 2

Essentials of Mens Rea................................................................................................................2-3

Mens Rea in Statutory Offences....................................................................................................3

Case Laws ......................................................................................................................................... 4-5

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 5-6

Refrences .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Introduction
Mens rea is a legal term that generally refers to the guilty mental state, the lack of which negates
the crime situation on any given occasion. It’s one of the most important aspects of criminal
liability. Only when an act is done intentionally that is prohibited by law is it considered a criminal
offence. The intent, which is the driving force behind the illegal conduct, is referred to as mens
rea. Only when an act is committed with a guilty conscience does it become criminal. In most
cases, a crime is not committed if the individual committing the act has an innocent mind. Before
a person can be held criminally accountable, they must be in a blameworthy state of mind. For
example, inflicting injury on an aggressor in self-defence is not illegal, but inflicting injury with
the aim of exact revenge is illegal.

The familiar Latin maxim ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’—the act does not render one
guilty unless the thought is also guilty—expresses the essential concept of the principle of mens
rea. At least in the case of the more severe crimes, simply committing a criminal act (or causing
the state of events that the law prohibits) is insufficient to constitute a crime. In most cases, there
must also be some element of improper intent or other misconduct.

How Did Mens Rea Developed

Mens Rea was not an ingredient of crime in the 12th century. Wrongdoers used to be punished
regardless of whether their actions were deliberate or not. Mens Rea was first proposed in the 17th
century, coupled with the Latin phrase ‘actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,’ which means
‘there can be no crime without a guilty mind.’ This maxim resolved the problem that a crime can
only be defined as an activity carried out with the purpose to commit a crime. Later, during British
rule, the element of Mens Rea was borrowed from English law and implemented into Indian
criminal laws. Lord Macaulay created a proposal of the Indian Penal Code in 1860, which was
passed on October 6, 1860. Though Mens Rea was originally part of English law, it was introduced
after it was modified and carefully arranged to suit the circumstances of British India.

The Concept Of Mens Rea In Indian Criminal Law

Mens Rea has a very prominent usage in Indian criminal law. The reasons behind this are self-
evident. One of the key reasons is that in India, the entire criminal law has been codified, and all
of the offences have been properly specified. If mens rea is viewed as a precondition, it is then
incorporated into the definition of the crime and treated as a component of it. Many definitions in
the penal code demand that the crime is committed ‘voluntarily,’ ‘dishonestly,’ ‘knowingly,’
‘fraudulently,’ and so on. A fraudulent, dishonest, or negligent mind is hence the guilty mind.

Furthermore, certain offences under the Indian penal code are defined without regard to mens rea
or purpose, such as crimes against the state, counterfeiting coinage, and so on.

1|P ag e
In India, mens rea as a condition of penal liability works to such an extent that it is codified in
the General Exceptions (Sections 76 to 106) of the penal code, which stipulates all those conditions
in which mens rea appears to have been subordinated, and therefore no culpability.

Types Of Mens Rea

For the better understanding of the Concept of Mens Rea it is necessary to understand the meaning
of certain words that are often used as synonyms for Mens Rea.

 Intention: It is the state of mind of the person doing the crime. It can be proved when
the defendant can foresee virtually that the consequences of the action of the person is
going to kill, cause grievous injury or any other prohibited harm to them.
 Motive: A motive in criminal law is the cause that moves people to induce into a certain
action[ii]. Motive is not a basic element of crime but it is mostly looked into while
investigation of a criminal case. Motive is the reason of any act, hence, even if motive
was good but the act was wrong then criminal liability may arise.
 Knowledge: the word knowledge or knowingly is used in certain places in IPC to denote
Mens Rea. It can be seen from two sides, firstly a person had knowledge and act in a
wrongful manner and secondly they had knowledge about the bad consequences and
chose not to act hence resulting in a wrongful act. Both can be understood as a part of
Mens Rea and are punishable.
 Negligence: It cannot be used as a synonym for Mens Rea but while looking for guilty
intent in any criminal case this aspect is also covered. Negligence is the lack of attention
or due care that a reasonable or prudent person may have while performing any task.
For a negligent act to turn into criminal negligence its degree shall be high enough to
cause criminal liability.
 Voluntarily: This word is used in the code to show that the person doing an act had the
knowledge of what they are doing and had full control of their actions. Voluntarily can
be used to show intention as well. It is used only because it has more extended meaning
than ‘intentionally.’

Essentials of Mens Rea

 Mens Rea is constructed from a person’s thought process, their motive and intention.
 Motive and intention are two separate ideas. Motive is the reason behind the act whereas
intention is a person’s state of mind and willingness to break the law.
 Presence of both Motive and Intention facilitates the prosecution of a crime but motive
is not a necessary element for conviction.
 Intention, whereas, on the other hand is more important than motive. It is a subjective
fact which is required by the criminal law by the prosecution.

2|P ag e
  Example: A person takes another person’s bike with them in good faith but it was taken
without consent. This act will be considered as theft.

Mens Rea in Statutory Offences

Offence can be defined as the violation of law. The word offence is generally interpreted as a
criminal wrong. There are certain offences that are not created by criminal laws but by different
statutes like taxation, national security etc. are Statutory Offences. The acts those are inherently
wrong such as murder, rape or grievously hurting someone etc. are offences but acts like driving
on the wrong side of the road which is not inherently wrong but is also an offence. Such offences
are known as statutory offences, some examples of these offences are:

 Adulteration of food items and drugs.

 Tax evasion or avoidance
 Black Marketing, false advertising, hoarding, profiteering etc.
 Misappropriation or theft of public funds or property.
 Misuse of position by public servants in any field of work.
While statutory interpretations are done there are certain aspects that are presumed. Here the
presumption is that all criminal actions contain the element of Mens Rea. It has also held that- “ it
is of the utmost importance that the protection of the liberty of the subject that a court should
always bear in mind that, unless a statute, rules out Mens Rea as a constituent part of crime the
court should not find a man guilty of an offence against criminal law, unless he has guilty mind’.

Though a statutory crime does not contain the explicit but a statute require specific intention,
knowledge malice etc. to act in such manner. In some case the statute may be silent on the
requirement of Mens Rea in such a situation the objects and terms of the statutes are looked into.
The court some court has also stated that even when there is no clear mention of state of mind in
the language of the statute it is implied that Mens Rea is an important ingredient in the constitution
of any offence.

In other instances the court has created a strict liability on statutory offences irrespective of the
presence of mens rea. Strict liability arises on matters concerning food[iii], drugs[iv], taxes[v] etc.

Illustrations
2. In a case where ‘A’ was out for hunting and in a sudden haste shot fires his gun which caused
the death of ‘B’, here B is dead but ‘A’ did not intended to kill him or did any type of prior
preparation for it. Here Mens Rea is not present. ‘A’ shall be given punishment for his actions but
not for murder.

3|P ag e
Case laws
R v Prince (1875)Fact of the case the defendant was convicted of taking an unmarried girl under
16 years of age out of the possession and against the will of her father. Under Section 55 of the
offences against the person Act, 1861, it was an offence. In this case the girl herself told Prince
that she was 18 years of age and she also physically appeared to be of 18 years of age.

The jury also found upon evidence that the girl went with Prince willingly and prince bonafidely
believed that she was of 18 years of age and such a belief was reasonable. It was argued on
behalf of Prince that common law doctrine of mens rea should also be applied under Section 55
and he should not be convicted because he had intention to commit the offence.
Only J.Brett accepted this argument and held that Prince was not guilty as he had no intention to
commit the offence.
Decision: The court found that the statute does not specifically state that mens rea is required,
the defendant is guilty because he knew his act was wrong.
This case has been criticized by many authors including Russel as unsatisfactory and in conflict
with established principles of criminal law.

In R v. Tolson(1889), Mrs. Tolson was married in 1890. In December 1881, her spouse went
missing. He had been on a ship that had gone missing at sea, she was told. She also enquired about
her husband’s older brother. She married another six years later, assuming her spouse had died.
The second husband was completely aware of the circumstances. Her husband returned 11 months
after their wedding date. Under Section 57 of the Offences Against Persons Act, 1861, she was
charged with bigamy. The reason for this was that she had married for the second time in less than
seven years. She did so with the best of intentions. This part was devoid of any mention of the
guilty mind. She was given the benefit of the doubt defence because it was reasonable to believe
her husband was deceased in the circumstances. She was found not guilty. Honest and reasonable
error is on the same level as the absence of the thinking faculty in childhood and the maintenance
of that faculty in madness. Unless expressly excluded or by necessary inference, these exclusions
apply equally to statutory offences. The actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea was applied by the
Court.

Brend v. Wood (1946)

The fundamental rule that applies to criminal cases is actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, as
Justice Goddard stated in the case of Brend v. Wood (1946). It is critical for the protection of the
subject’s liberty that a court remember that “unless the statute expressly or by necessary
implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, a defendant should not be found
guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has a guilty mind.”

4|P ag e
Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895)

In the case of Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895), Justice Wright stated that

1. There is a presumption that mens rea, or ill purpose, or awareness of the wrongfulness
of the act, is a fundamental part in every offence
2. Unless the opposite is proven, mens rea is assumed in every statute.
3. There is a presumption that mens rea, or evil intent, or knowledge of the act’s
wrongfulness, is an essential ingredient in every offence; however, that presumption
may be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the
subject-matter with which it deals, and both must be considered.

State of Maharashtra v. M.H.George (1964)

State of Maharashtra v. M.H George(1964) is a landmark judgment. On November 27, 1962,

Mayer Hans George, a German smuggler, flew from Zurich (famous city of Switzerland) to Manila
(Capital of Philippines) with 34 kilos of gold concealed on his person. On the 28th, the plane
arrived in Bombay, but the respondent did not disembark. The customs authorities searched the
plane’s manifest for any gold consigned by any passenger but found none. They boarded the plane,
searched the respondent, recovered the gold, and charged him with an offence under Sections
8(1) and 23(1-A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, as well as a Reserve Bank of
India notification dated November 8, 1962, which was published in the Gazette of India on
November 24.

Several British and Indian cases were examined by the Supreme Court. The purpose of the FERA
of 1947 was to combat smuggling. This case is related to the country’s economic situation. As a
result, the Supreme Court adopted the strict liability concept rather than the maxim.

Conclusion
Crime and punishment are intrinsically tied. In accordance with the criminal law system, mens rea
is a crucial component. As a result, unless clearly stated otherwise with just reasons, mens rea
becomes the sine qua non for all cases. By the presumption, every individual is presumed to intend
the natural consequences of his act. Furthermore, taking into account relevant judgments, and the
legislative framework, it is not possible to say that mens rea is not an essential element in statutory
offences. The Supreme Court has stated numerous times that it is not obligated to adopt an English
court’s decision, but rather is free to develop a law that is appropriate for Indian conditions.

5|P ag e
“There can be no crime large or small, without an evil mind. It is, therefore, a principle of our legal
system, as probably it is of every other, that the essence of an offence is the wrongful intent,
without which it cannot exist.” – Bishop

References
Prof. S N Mishra, Indian Penal Code. Allahabad : Central Law Publication (CLP). (22nd Edn., 2020))

Class Lecture Notes

Unacademy, Youtube

6|P ag e