Law of Crimes- I : Indian

Penal Code

Prof. S.M. Aamir Ali

 • It is difficult to give a portrait of accused’s mind
or intention at the given moment as intention is
an abstract, it is difficult to establish it and the
help is taken of surrounding facts or factors:
• (i) previous relation between the accused and the
victim, any object of hostility between them;
How to establish mens • (ii) existence of instigation i.e. whether the accused
rea was hired and what prompted him to commit
crime; and
• (iii) whether the accused had something to gain
out of the whole affair.
• Thus, guilty intention is always preceded by a
motive or real causal factors. 2
 • In former times, it was thought that legislature was not
competent to override the established rule of common
law. Accordingly, mens rea was read into every offence.
• For the first time a literal interpretation of Penal Statute,
totally rejecting the underlying idea of mens rea was
taken in R. v. Prince (1875) 2CCR 154 ATC.
Mens rea when • Lord Wright in Sherras v De Rutzen (1865) 1 QB 918,
said that although, mens rea, an evil intention or
not essential knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act is the essential
(Strict Liability) ingredients of every offence, there are certain limited
and exceptional classes of offences which are outside
this rule.
• Although mens rea is a sacrosanct principle of criminal
law, it can be waived in certain circumstances.
3
• There are some special circumstances under which the
law imposes strict or absolute liability, and such cases
may be treated as exception to the doctrine of mens rea.
 • (1) Mens rea is , not essential in respect of five offences in IPC,
namely – Sec. 121 (waging war), Sec 124-A (Sedition), Secs. 359
& 363 (Kidnapping and abduction), and, Sec. 232 (counterfeiting
coins).

Five Scenarios in • Thus, where the accused is charged with kidnapping a minor girl,
his plea that he honestly believed that the girl was not minor was
which mens rea is not not accepted by the court.
required in criminal • Similarly, a person who attempts to pass a counterfeit currency
law note or in whose possession such notes were found, should not
be permitted to raise a plea that he was not aware of notes being
counterfeit, unless the person is ignorant and illiterate villager.
• (2) Where a statute imposes a struct liability, the presence of a
guilty mind is irrelevant. Several modern statute passed in the
interest of public safety and social welfare imposes such strict
liability. In matters concerning public health, food, drugs, etc.,
such strict liability is imposed, e.g., The Motor Vehicle Act; The 4
Arms Act; NDPS Act 1985; Public Liability Insurance Act 1991.
• (3) When it is difficult to prove mens rea, where the penalties are petty fines and where a statute has
done away with the necessity of mens rea on the basis of expediency, strict liability in criminal law may
be imposed, e.g., parking offences.

• (3) Public nuisance is another exception to the doctrine of mens rea.

• (4) Another exception to the doctrine of mens rea is to be found in those cases which are criminal in
form, but are in fact only a summary mode of enforcing a civil right.

• (4) Another exception that might be mentioned here is related to the maxim “Ignorance of the law is no
excuse”.

• If a person violates a law without the knowledge of the law, it cannot be said that he has intentionally
violated the law, though he has intentionally committed an act which is prohibited by law.
• In such cases, the fact that he was not aware of the rule of law and that he did not intend to violate it, is no
defence, and he would be liable as if he was aware of the law.
• The underlying reason of this rule is that a man could have known the law if he had taken care to do so.
• However, this rule is not applicable to cases where there is no legislative provision for publication of order
designed to enable the man conduct, to find out by appropriate enquiry, what provision of law affect him. 5
 • State of Maharastra v MH George (AIR 1965
SC 722)

• Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR

1966 SC 43)
Leading cases:
• State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narayan Singh
(1989) SCC 596

• State of Orissa v. K. Rajeshwar rao (AOR

1992 SC 240) 6
Thank You!