MENS REA

&
ACTUS REUS
In Crimes against Women and
Children

Presented By:
Dr. Deepa Singh
Advocate
 WHAT IS A CRIME?
A Public Wrong -
Blackstone “An act committed or omitted in violation of a public law
forbidding or commanding it.”
Modified definition –
“A Crime is violation of the public rights & duties due to the whole
community, considers as a community”.

Stephen: “A crime is a violation of a right, considered in reference to the evil

tendency of such violation – as regards the community at large.”
A moral wrong –
Greek – ‘Krimos’
Sanskrit – ‘Karma’
There are many acts that are prohibited not
because of their immoral nature but other factors.
Ex. – Traffic Offences, Licensing, Taxing,
Possession of Prohibited Goods, Weapons, Drugs etc.
 WHAT IS A CRIME?
A conventional wrong –
Edwin Sutherland – “Criminal behaviour is a behaviour in violation of criminal law –
body of specific rules”.

A social wrong –
Crime is an act that has been shown to the actually harmful to the society or that is
believed to be socially harmful by group of people that has the power to enforce its
beliefs and that places such act under the ban of positive penalties.

A procedural wrong –
Austin – “A wrong which is pursued by the Sovereign or his subordinates is a crime.
A wrong which is pursued at the discretion of the injured party and his representatives
is a civil injury.”

Kenny modified Austin’s Definition –

Crime are wrongs whose sanction is punitive and it is no way remissible by any
private person, but is remissible by the crown alone, if remissible at all.
 CHARACTERISTICS OF A
CRIME
Characteristics of Crime –
1. An act or omission on the part of human beings – considered harmful by
the State.
2. Prevented by sanction of punishment administered by the State.
3. Guilt of the accused is determined in legal proceedings in accordance of
law.
 TORT & CRIME
Similarities -
1. Both are violation of right in rem.
2. The rights & duties are fixed by law
irrespective of the consent of the parties.
Differences –
3. A tort is a private wrong,
Crime is a public wrong.
2. In tort, the wrong doer has to compensate injured party,
In crime, he is punished by State.
3. In tort, the action is brought by the injured,
in Crime, proceedings are initiated by & in the name of the State.
 CONSTITUENTS OF A
CRIME
(a) Acts reus
(b) Mens rea
(c) Concurrence between
acts reus & mens rea
CONSTITUENTS OF A CRIME
 MENS REA
• Mens rea is an essential part of deciding whether an act is culpable or not. Mens
rea displays specific intent by the accused for the commission of the crime for
which he is charged.
• The accused must be proven to have knowingly committed the crime, and had
full knowledge of their actions and must have malafide intent towards the victim.
• Mens rea is also used in some civil suits, requiring the defendant to have been
aware of the repercussions of their actions for a civil liability to arise.
• Further, an Act may be voluntary or involuntary, and the guilt is determined by
the facts of the case. If a person drives while he’s drunk and involuntarily causes
harm to others, he is still guilty as it was a voluntary choice on his part to
consume alcohol before driving, even though the crime itself was unintentional.
• However, if an otherwise healthy person suffers a heart attack while driving and
involuntarily causes harm to others, he are not liable and is not guilty of the
crime.
 OBJECTIVES OF MENS
REA
• Lord Atkinson said, 'a man is presumed to intend the natural
consequences of his own act'.
• A consequence of his conduct said to be intended when he desires
that it shall arise from his conduct or foresees it as a virtual certainty.
• Law does not want to punish an innocent man who did not have the
intention of participating in the crime.
• That is why words like intentionally, voluntarily, wilfully, knowingly
etc. have been used in various provisions.
• These words indicate the state of mind of the person at the time of
commission of the offence.
 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE, 1860
Mistake Of Fact – Section 76 & 79
Accident & Misfortune – Section 80
Infancy – Section 82

Insanity – Section 84
Intoxication – Section 85
Private Defence – Section 96
 INTENTION
➢To intend is to have in mind a fixed purpose to reach a desired
objective; it is used to denote the his conduct.
➢The idea of 'intention' in law is not always expressed by the words
'intention', 'intentionally' or 'with intent to'. It is expressed also by words
such as 'voluntarily', 'deliberately', or 'knowingly' etc.
➢Intention is the fore knowledge of consequences arising out of an act
coupled with desire of it. Act includes omission also.
➢Australian and English common law generally attribute a threefold
meaning to intention. A person will be held to intend something if:
i) it was their direct aim or purpose;
ii) they knew that it was absolutely certain to occur as a result of pursuing
that direct aim or purpose; or
iii) They knew that the consequence was “virtually certain” to occur.
 MOTIVE
• Motive is a psychological phenomenon which incites or
stimulates action. It is the end.
• Motive is something that prompts a person to form an opinion or
intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act by illegal
means with a view to achieve the intended result.
• When motive comes into picture:-
i) When intention cannot be gathered from facts and circumstances
of the case.
ii) For deciding magnitude of punishment.
• Example- Section 379 (Punishment for theft)

• Case- Machi Singh v. State of Punjab

The court observed that the manner, motive and magnitude of the
offence is considered while determining the punishment.
 KNOWLEDGE
• Awareness about the consequences.
• Knowledge of the circumstances is of three degrees.
i) Actual knowledge which may be inferred from the conduct of the
accused.
ii) Where a person deliberately refrains from making inquiries, the
results of which he might not care to have.
iii) Where someone unintentionally fails to make enquiries which
reasonable and prudent person would make.
• Knowledge, as contrast to intention, signifies a state of mental
realization in which the mind is a passive recipient of certain ideas
or impressions arising in it, while intention connotes a conscious
state of mind in which mental faculties are summoned into action
for the deliberate, prior conceived and perceived consequences.
 NEGLIGENCE
• As per “Wharton's Law Laxicon”, there are three degrees of
negligence:
(1) Lata culpa, gross neglect (careless state of mind)
(2) Levis culpa, ordinary neglect (breach of legal duty to take
care.)
(3) Levissima culpa, slight neglect (careless conduct without
reference to any duty to take care.)
• As per section 279, 280, 282, 284 and 286-289 of Indian Penal
Code, the law imposes criminal liability on the ground of
negligence, particularly when a negligent act poses a threat to
life and personal safety of others
 BURDEN OF PROOF
• General Presumption- ‘EVERY PERSON ACCUSED OF A
CRIME IS PRESUMED TO BE INNOCENT, UNLESS AND
UNTIL PROVED GUILTY BY THE PROSECUTION.
• Burden solely rests upon PROSECUTION.
• Always for the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt
all the essential ingredients of the offence including the requisite
mens rea to prove the guilt of the accused.
• REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION- Accused is given the
opportunity to prove that though he had committed certain acts, it
was done innocently and without any criminal intent.
 TESTS OF MENS REA
• The tests offered to help determine whether or not a circumstance is enough to
satisfy Mens Rea can be either subjective, objective, or a hybrid of both.
• In subjective tests of Mens Rea the court need only be satisfied that the individual
have the requisite mental element outlined in the modes of culpability at the time of
the crime occurred.
• Such situations often occur in conjunction of admissions of guilt or written
communication. It is rare, however, that this be readily (if ever) available in a case.
• In these situations, objective tests are instead implemented in which Mens Rea is
imputed on the basis that a reasonable person would have had the requisite mental
elements in such a situation.
• It is safe to assume that a typically functioning individual is aware of their
surroundings and understands the basic theory of cause and effect.
• As such, when an individual is deciding what to do they have a sound understanding
of where the results would fall on a sliding scale from “inevitable” (e.g. if one drops
a rock, it will fall to the ground) to “impossible” (e.g. if one drops a rock, it will turn
in to a turkey).
 DOCTRINES & STATUTES
 R v Mrs Tolson: (1889 23 QRD 168 CCR) Bigamy case, no mens rea, as
she believed husband lost in vessel.
 Sherras v. DE Rutzen (1895 1 QB 918) serving drinks to police officer on
duty an offence, assuming that he is not on duty, makes him not guilty.
 Warner v. Commissioner of Metropolitan Police (1968 2 AllER 356) – A
parcel was found in van with prohibited drug. D believed that it was scent.
Not guility.
 State of Kerala v. Kunchu (1959 KLJ 588): offence of selling adulterated
milk under Food Adulteration Act 1954. Master pleaded guilty, servant not,
acquitted. Absolute liability cannot be fastened on servant.
 R v. Prince – bonafide belief that girl was above 16 in kidnap case, no
justification, offence of moral turpitude. Word “intentionally”.
 Mens rea need to be strictly proved in offences resulting from as violation
of legal provisions.
 Mala in se offences which are intrinsically immoral or wrong in themselves
and mala prohibita: Acts prohibiting like enhancement of rent, removal of
foodgrains etc.
 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 certain cases, circumstances of the case are also taken into
consideration, and are often used to either conclusively prove guilt,
or can be used to prove reasonable doubt of intention.
ACT EXTENDS TO ILLEGAL
OMISSIONS
• Section 33. provides that the word act includes a series of acts and
omission denotes a series of omissions as a single omission.
• Contributory negligence of victim has no place in criminal
law. It plays no role in determination of the guilt of the
wrong doer.

Act may or Act to be

Act Should Act to be
may not direct
Act be
Voluntary
prohibited
by Law
result in cause of
Harm Harm
 REQUIREMENTS
• The requirements of actus reus varies depending on the definition
of the crime.
 ACTION MUST BE
VOLUNTARY
• The Actus Reus of the offence must be voluntarily performed.
This means that the accused must have had the capacity to
control his/her movement at the time that the accused performed
the actus of the offense.
• Where the Actus Reus is involuntary - no criminal offence is
said to be committed. Consequently, a person will not be guilty
of a criminal offence, where that person performs the Actus Reus
of the offence due to a reflex action or through physical
compulsion by another person.
 DIRECT/ NATURAL/
PROXIMATE
CONSEQUENCES
- Consequences that are forceable.
- which he can anticipate
- which he expected to follow

- If the connection between acts rea & resultant consequences is obscure

due to some intervening cause then the liability can’t be imposed.
- Every event is a result of multiplicity of acts which leads to the
consequences.
- The person who is last in the chain of events & from whose acts rea
consequences are directly followed shall alone be answerable for the
same.
 DIFFICULTY IN
ASCERTAINING
CAUSATION
• Causation and Negligence :- To be established that the conduct of
the person was negligent and that but for the negligent act of the
accused, the event would not have occurred.
• Minimal Causation :- If death results from an injury voluntarily
caused, the person injuring shall be deemed to have caused death.
Although the victim might be saved if proper medical treatment
was given.
• Intervention of an innocent person :- A person would be held
fully responsible if he had made use of an innocent agent to
commit crime.
• Intervention of another person :- Where another person had
intervened and his actions were the immediate cause of crime, the
original wrongdoer will be absolved from liability.
 CASE STUDY
Joginder Singh V. State of Punjab 1979 SC – direct connection
must be there b/w AR & consequences.

Facts – The deceased misbehaved with the sister of accused

(JS). So JS & friend went to the house of deceased. Deceased
escaped from the house and ran. JS followed him running.
Deceased jumped into the well and sustained injury. He died
as a result of drowning. JS omitted to help him and ran away.
SC held that since they were running in an open field, he might
have ran into any directions. Consequences can not have
been attributed to the accused since jumping in the well was
not the only option available to the deceased – not within
accused’s control. If the deceased had no other option but to
jump then the accused would have been liable with murder.
 STRICT LIABILITY
• Some cases have a strict liability clause, wherein Mens rea does not
matter. Cases involving statutory rape and sale of alcohol or tobacco to
minors are prime examples of this.
• It does not matter if the accused believed that his actions were legal, he
will be guilty for the crime. In such cases, Actus Reus alone is sufficient
to establish guilt, and to obtain a conviction from a competent court of
law.
• Some crimes require a deeper level of Mens Rea, like theft. Crimes like
theft involve the specific intention to deprive the rightful owner of the
full use the stolen good and enjoyment of his personal property with no
intention of returning the said goods to their rightful owner.
• However, in cases of theft, the object does not necessarily have to be
removed from the victim’s immovable property.
Concurrence of Actus Reus and
Mens Rea
• Mens Rea plays a major role in determining the criminal liability
of a person. A person cannot be deemed guilty if he lacked the
criminal intent while committing an act.
• This common law doctrine is expressed through the maxim ‘actus
non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’, which means that an act does
not make one guilty unless his mind is guilty.
• The prosecution must prove that the defendant had criminal intent
(mens rea) at the time of committing the crime.
• The rule is that the suspect must have mens rea either before or
while doing the crime.
• So, actus reus and mens rea must be concurrent (simultaneous) or
motivational (actus reus motivated by mens rea). 
 Concurrence of Actus Reus
and Mens Rea
• The principle of concurrence or coincidence is applicable for an act which
comprises a single event, or an act that comprises a series of events.
• In case of a series of events that are continuous, the mens rea must be
formed either before or during the events.
• For example, ‘A’ was driving his car during the middle of night, when he
hit ‘B’ accidentally. ‘A’ leaves the place, even though he finds ‘B’ lying
unconscious on the road. After some time, another car hits ‘B’, who dies
on the spot.
• In fact, the driver of the second car did not see ‘B’ lying on the road. In
this case, ‘B’ would not have died if ‘A’ had not left him on the road. It is
reckless omission (to move ‘B’ from the road) on the part of ‘A’ that lead
to the death of ‘B’. This amounts to mens rea’ that makes ‘A’ liable.
• So, the series of events will constitute the actus reus, and mens rea will be
deemed to have formed during the continuing series of events.
 CONCURRENCE OF ACTUS
REUS AND MENS REA
• In short, both are the most important and basic elements when it
comes to establishing criminal liability. The difference between
them is that’ one represents the physical element (actus reus)’
and the other represents the mental element (mens rea) of a
crime.
• In some cases, a person may become liable for his acts or
omissions, irrespective of the mental element. In other words,
proving mens rea is not necessary to make a person liable in
certain cases.
• A person will be deemed liable and will be convicted even if he
is not aware that his action is prohibited in nature.
 STATUTORY OFFENCES
• The offences which have been created by Specific Statutes, like
offences under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,
etc., are commonly referred to as Statutory offences.
• Offences that are malum in se are the ones that are inherently wrong
or evil, like murder, rape, etc.. The society at large recognizes them as
wrong. They have developed as offences over the years and through
decisions of the court.
• Hence, these are also called Common Law offences as they are
developed through precedents.
• On the other hand, offences that are malum prohibitum are the acts
that are wrong because they are prohibited by statutes. For example,
offences created by Road Traffic Rules are not inherently wrong but,
since they are the rules that have to be followed on the road, their
violation would lead to penalty.
 PRESUMPTION REQUIRING
MENS REA
• The fundamental principle of criminal liability is that there must be a wrongful
act- actus reus combined with a wrongful intention. In criminal law, mens rea is a
technical term, generally taken to mean some blameworthy mental condition, the
absence of which on any particular occasion negates the condition of crime.
• It is one of the essential ingredients of criminal liability. But there are certain offences
where a defendant can be convicted notwithstanding that he did not have any mens rea.
These offences are generally referred to as offences of strict liability.
• J. Herring gives a very simple definition of strict liability offence as follows: “A
defendant is guilty of a strict liability offence if by a voluntary act he causes the
prohibited result or state of affairs and in this case, there is no need to prove that the
defendant had a particular state of mind.”
• A strict-liability doctrine is a rule of criminal responsibility that authorizes the
conviction of a morally innocent person for violation of an offence, even though the
crime, by definition, requires proof of a mens rea. 
• An example is the rule that a person who is ignorant of, or who misunderstands the
meaning of a criminal law may be punished for violating it, even if her ignorance or
mistake of law was reasonable.
 PRESUMPTION
REQUIRING MENS REA
• Where the subject matter of the statute is the regulation for the public welfare of a
particular activity – statutes regulating the sale of food and drink are to be found
among the earliest examples – it can be and frequently has been inferred that the
legislature intended that such activities should be carried out under conditions of
strict liability.
• The presumption is that the statute or statutory instrument can be effectively
enforced only if those in charge of the relevant activities are made responsible for
seeing that they are complied with.
• When such a presumption is to be inferred, it displaces the ordinary presumption of
mens rea. But, it is not enough merely to label the statute as one dealing with a grave
social evil and from that to infer that strict liability was intended.
• It is pertinent also to inquire whether putting the defendant under strict liability will
assist in the enforcement of the regulations.
• Unless this is so, there is no reason in penalizing him, and it cannot be inferred that
the legislature imposed strict liability merely in order to find a luckless victim.
 CONCLUSION
• After the above discussion regarding Actus Reus and Mens Rea,
it can be concluded that there are 4 essential elements of a crime:-
(1) the crime must be committed by a person,
(2) there must be hurt or injury caused to another,
(3) there must exist an Actus Reus,
(4) there must be a Mens rea to commit the crime, with certain
exceptions.
Moreover, that in some special cases like those of statutory
offences, Mens Rea may be presumed by the court.
THANK YOU !