MENS REA

By Y. Srinivasa Rao M.A (English)., B.Ed., B.L., LL.M (Final) I Addl. Junior civil judge, Bhimavaram

The term actus reus, the Latin term for a guilty act, is one of the two necessary elements for prosecution of most crimes in English law; the other being inaction in Indian riminal Law.

mens rea. Therefore, in the present

article, the meaning of ''mens rea'' is highlighted as to understand the liability for action and

INTRODUCTION: As a general rule, unless a person has committed the necessar !!actus reus!!, he cannot "e #ound guilt $ nevertheless there are some e%ceptions. &o', it is apt to see that !! mens rea, in Anglo(American la', criminal intent or evil mind. In general, the de#inition o# a criminal o##ense involves not onl an act or omission and its conse)uences "ut also the accompan ing mental state o# the actor...*!! +he concept o# mens rea developed in England during the latter part o# the common(la' era (a"out the ear *,--) 'hen judges "egan to hold that an act alone could not create criminal lia"ilit unless it 'as accompanied " a guilt state o# mind. +oda most crimes, including common(la' crimes, are de#ined " statutes that usuall contain a 'ord or phrase indicating the mens rea re)uirement. A t pical statute, #or e%ample, ma re)uire that a person act .no'ingl , purposel , or rec.lessl /. 0rimes involving mens rea are o# t'o t pes, (i) crimes o# "asic intent and (ii) crimes o# speci#ic intent. In the #ormer clause o# crimes, the mens rea does not go "e ond the actus reus. In the second, it goes "e ond the contemplation o# prohi"ited act and #oresight o# its conse)uence has a purposive element.$ (At para ,/), As stated " 1illiams 2 1hat does legal mens rea means3 It re#ers to the mental element necessar #or the particular crime, and this mental element ma "e either intention to do immediate act or "ringing a"out the conse)uence or (in some crimes) rec.lessness as to such act or conse)uence. In a di##erent and more precise language, the mens rea means intention or rec.lessness as to the element constituting actus reus. +hese t'o concepts, intention and rec.lessness, hold a .e to the understanding o# large part o# criminal la', some crimes re)uire intention
* / +o .no' more see !!Article #rom the enc clopaedia Britanicca!!. http244legal(dictionar .the#reedictionar .com4mens5rea

:/: and nothing else 'ill do, "ut some can "e committed either intentionall or rec.lessl . 6ome crimes re)uire particular .ind o# intention or .no'ledge 71illiams on 0riminal La' (8eneral4part page 9-):. ;e#erring to the elements o# mens rea, 8lanville 1illiams states 2 the mere commission o# a criminal act (or "ringing a"out the state o# a##airs that the la' provides against) is not enough to constitute a crime, at an rate in the case o# more serious crime. +his generall re)uire, in addition, some element o# 'rong#ul intent or other #ault. +he Ape% 0ourt in the case o# <irector o# En#orcement vs. M.0.+.M.0orporation

=vt. Ltd.( o"served thus 2 >Mens rea> is a state o# mind. ?nder the criminal la', mens
rea is considered as the >guilt intention> and unless it is #ound that the accused had the guilt intention to commit the crime he cannot "e held guilt o# committing the crime.> +he concept o# mens rea is aptl descri"ed " +heir Lordships o# Ape% 0ourt in the case o# &athulal vs. 6tate o# Madh a =radesh ( . In para no.@ o# the judgment +heir Lordships o"served thus 2 >+he la' on the su"ject is #airl 'ell settled. It has come under judicial scrutin o# this 0ourt on man occassions. It does not call #or a detailed discussion. It is enough to restate the principles. Mens rea is an essential ingredient o# a criminal o##ence. <ou"tless a statute ma e%clude the element o# mens rea, "ut it is a sound rule o# construction adopted in England and also accepted in India to construe a statutor provision creating an o##ence in con#ormit 'ith the common la' rather than against it unless the statute e%pressl or " necessar implication e%cluded mens rea. +he mere #act that the o"ject o# the statute is to promote 'el#are activities or to eradicate a grave social evil is " itsel# not decisive o# the )uestion 'hether the element o# guilt mind is e%cluded #rom the ingredients o# an o##ence. Mens rea " necessar implication ma "e e%cluded #rom a statute onl 'here it is a"solutel clear that the implementation o# the o"jection o# the statute 'ould other'ise "e de#eated9.> Mens rea2 Latin #or >guilt mind>$ guilt .no'ledge or intention to commit a prohi"ited act. Also2 >a particular state o# mind such as the intent to cause, or some #oresight o#, the results o# the act or the state o# a##airs.> ( ; v <aviault 7*AA@: 9 60; ,9 at para. B@) Man serious crimes re)uire the proo# o# mens rea "e#ore a person can "e convicted. In other 'ords, the prosecution must prove not onl that the accused committed the o##ence (actus reus) "ut that he (or she) did it .no'ing that it 'as prohi"ited$ that their act (or omission) 'as done 'ith an intent to commit the crime. A ma%im rich in tradition and 'ell .no'n to la' students is actus non #acit reum, nisi mens sit rea or >a person cannot "e convicted and punished in a proceeding o# a criminal nature unless it can "e sho'n that he had a guilt mind>. &ot all o##ences re)uire proo# o# mens rea such as man statutor or regulator o##ences@.

9+o .no' more, please go through !! /--9 0riLJ /AA@, Mohammad 8ausuddin 6on C# 1ali Mohammad vs +he 6tate C# Maharashtra, +hrough 6tation C##icer !! @ http244'''.duhaime.org4Legal<ictionar 4M4Mens;ea.asp%

:9: As long "ac. as *DAE. 1right J. o"served in 6herras v.<e ;utFen.>+here is a presumption that mans rea, an evil intention o# .no'ledge o# the 'rong#ulness o# the act, is an essential ingredient in ever o##ence$ "ut that presumption is lia"le to "e displaced either " the 'ords o# the statute creating the o##ence or " the su"jectmatter 'ith 'hich it deals, and "oth must "e consi( dered.> in ;avule Gariprasada ;ao v. +he 6tate(*) ruled that unless a statute either clearl or " necessar implication rules out mens rea as a costituent part o# the crime, a person should not "e #ound guilt o# an o##ence against the criminal la' unless he has got a guilt mindE. Mens rea means a guilt mind, a guilt or 'rong#ul purpose$ a criminal intent. It presupposes guilt "lame'orth .no'ledge and 'il#ulness ,. Mens rea means some .no'ledge or intention or mental condition 'hether constituted "

other'ise. An honest and (reasona"le "elie# entertained " the accused o# the e%istence o# the #acts, 'hich, i# true, 'ould ma.e the act charged against him innocent, 'ould "e enough to sho' the a"sence o# mens reaB. In Lim Chin Aik v. The Queen [1963] AC 160 (PC), the Privy Coun i! re o"ni#e$ th%t &here '(u)!i &e!*%re o**en e#' (&hi h mo#t mo$ern #t%tutory o**en e# %re) &ere on erne$ there &%# % (re#um(tion o* #tri t !i%)i!ity %n$ the (re#um(tion o* men# re% &%# $i#(!% e$. In In$o+Chin% ,te%m -%vi"%tion Co. Lt$., v. .%#/it

,in"h [1960] 30 Com( C%# 031 (,C) the ,u(reme Court %tt% he$ "re%t
im(ort%n e to the #o i%! (ur(o#e o* the !e"i#!%tion r%ther th%n to the #o %!!e$ (re#um(tion re!%tin" to men# re%. In ,t%te o* 2%h%r%#htr% v. 2%yer 3%n#

4eor"e [1961] 31 Com( C%# 115 (,C) the ,u(reme Court e6(re##e$ the vie& th%t
the ru!e o* on#tru tion !%i$ $o&n )y the Court o* Crimin%! A((e%! o* 7n"!%n$ in 8e"in% v. ,t. 2%r"%ret# Tru#t Lt$., [1919] 1 :L8 1;; (C Cr A(() &%# ne%rer to the (oint h%vin" re"%r$ to the o)/e t# %n$ (ur(o#e# o* the !e"i#!%tion &ith &hi h they &ere $e%!in".

Mens Rea: Is it required in all cases? 0onsidering the )uestion o# re)uirement o# mens rea, the Gon!"le 6upreme 0ourt in

8ujarat +ravancore Agenc v. 0ommissioner o# Income(ta%, Herala o"served2 ...In

the case o# a proceeding under 6ection /B*(*)(a), ho'ever, it seems that the intention o# the Legislature is to emphasise the #act o# loss o# revenue and to provide a remed #or such loss, although no dou"t an element o# coercion is present in the penalt . In this connection, the terms in 'hich the penalt #alls to "e measured are signi#icant. ?nless there is something in the language o# the statute indicating the need to esta"lish the element o# mens rea, it is generall su##icient to prove that a de#ault in compl ing 'ith the statute has occurred. In para *9, In 0ommissioner 0entral E%cise vs Hc Allo s And
E , 6tate C# 8ujarat I Anr vs Achar a <. =ande I Crs, *AB* AI; D,,, *AB* 60; (/) EEB Additional 0ommissioner C# ... vs &ara anadas ;am.ishan ,*ABE *-- I+; *D A=

B *AA- BD 6+0 /D9 8auhati$ Braja Lal Bani. vs 6tate C# +ripura And Crs.

:@: 6teel 0astings 'hich 'as decided on 9 August, /--,, it 'as held that !! It ma also "e noticed that though, normall , element o# mens rea is mandator re)uirement "e#ore penalt can "e imposed "ut it is not al'a s so re)uired.!! In Deepa And Ors. vs S.I. O !olice" And Anr #. it 'as held that !!&ormall a charge must #ail #or 'ant o# mens rea "ut there ma "e o##ences 'here mens rea ma not "e re)uired. But actus reus must al'a s e%ist. 1ithout it there cannot "e an o##ence. Mens rea can e%ist 'ithout actus reus, "ut i# there is no actus reus there can "e no crime. Even i# mens rea is there, no conviction could "e had 'ithout actus reus 'ithout 'hich there cannot "e a crime. For e%ample a man ma intend to marr during the li#etime o# his 'i#e and enter into a marriage "elieving that he is committing the o##ence o# "igam . Mens rea is there. But i# un.no'n to him his 'i#e died "e#ore he married again, in spite o# the mens rea there cannot "e an o##ence o# "igam .

In 0ommissioner o# 6ales +a% v. ;ama and 6ons, 8eneral Merchant, Ballia A, the
Allaha"ad Gigh 0ourt o"served as under2( >+he principle o# mens rea comes #rom English 0riminal La' #rom times 'hen the la' 'as not codi#ied. It 'as said that actus non #acit reum nisi mens sit rea (the intent and act must "oth concur to constitute the crime). But this principle has lost much o# its signi#icance o'ing to greater precision o# modern statutes. +he nature o# intent or the ingredients o# o##ences are no' clearl stated in the statutes and nothing #urther is re)uired to esta"lish as o##ence then 'hat the statute speci#ied. 1e have 'ords li.e !voluntaril !, !intentionall !, !negligetl !, !.no'ingl !, #raudulentl !, !dishonestl !, !rashl !, !omits!, !'ithout la'#ul authorit ! ect., !omits!, !'ithout la'#ul authorit ! ect., used in various sections o# the Indian =enal 0ode de#ining various o##ence. =roo# o# the 6tate o# mind or o# the conduct o# the person as indicated " the a#oresaid 'ord esta"lishes the o##ence and no #urther guilt intent or mens rea need "e proved. In #act there are man acts 'hich are o##ences and do not re)uire proo# an mens rea or guilt intention, #or e%ample possession o# illicit #ire arm.> In $Lal Behari v. 6tate (E)!, it 'as held " the Gon!"le Bench o# Allaha"ad Gigh court that no mens rea is re)uired #or an o##ence o# contempt o# court$ 'hat 'as meant is that no criminal intention or motive "ehind the deli"erate doing o# an act is re)uired. In vie' o# these position o# la', a #ortiori, it is also to "e remem"ered that the degree o# mens rea re)uired #or a particular common(la' crime varied. For e%ample, +he o##ence o# Murder is re)uired a malicious state o# mind, 'hereas Larcen is re)uired a #elonious state o# mind. CONC%USION: Men# re% &%# %n e##enti%! in"re$ient o* %n <**en e. An %((!i %tion o* the ru!e o* on#tru tion to thi# (rin i(!e me%nt th%t there &%# no (re#um(tion th%t
D A *AD, 0riLJ **/*AAA ?=+0 /E

:E: men# re% &%# e6 !u$e$ *orm #t%tutory o**en e#. =n$er ommon !%& 'It i# % #oun$ ru!e to on#true % #t%tute in on*ormity &ith the ommon !%& r%ther th%n %"%in#t it, e6 e(t &here %n$ #o *%r the #t%tute i# (!%in!y inten$e$ to %!ter the our#e o* the ommon !%&. Let me on !u$e thi# %rti !e &ith o)#erv%tion o* the 3on>)!e Full Bench o# Andhra =radesh Gigh 0ourt, in Additional, 0ommissioner,

Income +a% v. <urga =andari &ath +ulija

a I 0o. *-, 'here it 'as o"served as

under2( >+he doctrine o# mens rea is o# common la' origin developed " Judge(made la'. It has no place in the Legislator!s la'. It has no place in the Legislator!s la' 'here o##ences are de#ined 'ith su##icient accurac .... Mens rea is an essential ingredient o# an o##ence. Go'ever, it is a rule o# construction. I# there is a con#lict "et'een the common la' and the statutor la', it has al'a s "een held that it is a sound rule to construe a statute in con#ormit 'ith the common la'. But it cannot "e postulated that statute cannot alter the course o# the common la'. +he parliament, in e%ercise o# its constitutional po'ers ma.es statutes and in e%ercise o# those po'ers it can a##irm, alter or ta.e a'a the common la' altogether. +here#ore, i# it is plain #rom the statute that it intends to alter the course o# the common la', then the plaint meaning should "e accepted. +he e%istence o# mens rea as an essential ingredient o# an o##ence has to "e made out " construction o# the statute.> (%( the

*- *ABB +a% L; /ED,