IPC 2022 Actus Reus and Mens Rea

ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA

What is a Crime?
An act of commission or omission, contrary to law for which punishment can be
inflicted through judicial proceedings conducted in the name of state. Simply putting
together whatever is declared by the legislature as a crime is a crime.
(The word crime is not defined in IPC)

Criminal liability is the Responsibility for criminal behaviour.

Essentials to constitute a crime:
1. Mens Rea (Mental aspect)
2. Actus Reus (Physical aspect)
3. Injury

ACTUS REUS: THE GUILTY ACT

This Latin term is also referred as a 'voluntary act’ i.e., prohibited by law.
Exception :
“Actus me invito factus non est mens actus”
An Act done by me, against my will is not my act at all.
Actus reus is the physical component of the crime. It includes acts contrary to
law.
The human conduct may consist of commission or omission of certain acts.
 The term ‘act’ includes illegal omission also (Section 32 of IPC)
 The term ‘act’ includes a single act as well as a series of acts and the
term ‘omission’ includes a single omission as well as a series of
omissions. (Section 33 of IPC).

YG LAW 1
IPC 2022 Actus Reus and Mens Rea

MENS REA - THE GUILTY MIND

“Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea”
Act is not criminal unless accompanied by a guilty mind.

It is a loose term which includes wide variety of mental states and conditions.

Intention
Knowledge Decreasing level
of Mens Rea
Recklessness
Negligence

Intention: Highest Degree of Mens Rea , There is always the presence of knowledge
with the presence of Intention.

Knowledge: Second Highest Degree of Mens Rea, Knowledge attracts lesser

culpability if there is absence of Intention.

Recklessness: Recklessness signifies a state of being mentally indifferent to obvious

risk. Higher degree than negligence because there is a certain risk for which the
individual decides to remain indifferent.

Negligence: When there is required a certain degree of due care or caution and the
individual lacks in the aspect of care and precaution is termed to be behaving
negligently.

B. Nathulal vs. State of M.P. (1966)

In this case, the accused, a food grain dealer applied for a license and deposited the
requisite license fee. He, without knowledge of rejection of his application,
purchased food grains and sent returns to the Licensing Authority, who on checking,
found that it was more than the quantity permitted by Section 7 of MP Food Grains
Dealers Licensing Order, 1958. The accused was prosecuted. However, he was
acquitted on the ground that he had no guilty mind.

C. Malhan K.A. vs. Kora Bibi Kutti (1996)

The accused was a financier. He seized a vehicle for which he financed but did not
receive the instalments. The person from whom the vehicle was seized complained
to Police alleging that the accused had stolen his vehicle. The Supreme Court held
that the element of mens rea is totally wanting in this case and the accused cannot
be convicted for the offence of theft under Section 379.

YG LAW 2
IPC 2022 Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Motive And Intention

 Motive prompts a man to form an Intention.
 Motive relates to ends – Intention relates to means - A thief has a
MOTIVE to get money so he forms an INTENTION to Steal.

Why Motive is important?

If direct evidence is there then it is not important, BUT when only
circumstantial evidence is there motive plays important role to
establish intention. Presence of motive supports the prosecution
case, but the absence of motive doesn’t weaken it.

When Mens Rea is not required?

 When you don’t know it is illegal because of ignorance of law.
Ignorantia juris non excusat - Ignorance of law is no excuse

M.H. George vs. State of Maharashtra (1965)

A pilot was transporting way more than the allowed limit of gold and
when caught he gave the defence that he didn’t know of the newly
made regulation prohibiting such transporting. He was held liable.

 Cases, which are not criminal in nature, but are prohibited in the interest of
public at large e.g., damaging environment, liability under consumer protection.
Offence of Public Nuisance also falls under this category.
 In Strict Liability and Absolute Liability offences
 Strict Liability rule was made in Ryland v. Fletcher (1868)
 Absolute Liability rule was made in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987)

 In the following offences Under IPC:

1. Waging war – Sec. 121
2. Sedition – Section 124A
3. Public Nuisance – Section 268
4. Kidnapping – Sec. 359
5. Abduction – Section 363
6. Counterfeiting Coins – Section 232

YG LAW 3
 IPC 2022 Actus Reus and Mens Rea

Relevance of Doctrine of Mens Rea in IPC.

Each and every offence under IPC has its ingredients mentioned not only in
regard to what the accused must have done but also the state of his mind. For
Example:
- Theft must be committed dishonestly
- Cheating must be committed fraudulently
- Murder must be committed either intentionally or knowingly.
So, the IPC it is self-sufficient and there is no room for applicability of the general
doctrine of mens rea.

Be part of YG Law Community and make studying law easier.

YouTube: YG Law; Instagram: YGLaw.in

Facebook: YGLaw.in; Twitter: YGLaw_in

Click here to view my courses

YG LAW 4
Protect pdf from copying with Online-PDF-No-Copy.com