Written by : JAISHREE SOMANI
ANUBHA KUMAR
AISHWARYA S
BHAVITA
2nd Year
BA-LLB
Symbiosis Law School,Hyderabad
MENS REA UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
WHETHER THE SCOPE OF MENS REA IS INHERENTLY LIMITED OR RESTRICTIVE IN NATURE?
MENS REA IN OFFENCES AGAINST BODY
CASES
Abdul Karim v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) Cr LJ 1485…………………………………….13
Chahat Khan v. State of Haryana, (1972) 1981 SCR (3) 839………………………………….11
Mohindar Singh v. State of Pepsu, 1954 SCC OnLine Pepsu 21……………………………….8
People v. Penny (1982)…………………………………………………………………………7
R v Cunningham, [1957] 2 QB 396……………………………………………………………16
R v. Corti (2004) 4 All ER 137 (CA)………………………………………………………….13
R v. Morrison, 3 All ER 288…………………………………………………………………..16
State v. Hall, 654 So. 2d 1085 (La. 1995)………………………………………………………7
State v. Wilson, 346 P.2d 115…………………………………………………………………18
UnitedStates v. Currans 290, F. 2 d 751 (3rd Cir. 1961), (United’ States Court of Appeals)……3
The “Mens Rea, or guilty mind”, notion is focused on the notion that a person has the ability to control his behaviours and choose between various courses of action.
According to Bishop, “there can be no crime, large or small, without an evil mind.” A crime is an offence against the State, and the requirement for proving a criminal activity is the presence of mens rea, or wrongful intent. The first step in the act of doing a crime is when a person intentionally causes a detrimental effect on society as a whole. Mens rea is the legal concept that, in general, refers to a person’s mental state being guilty, the absence of which rendered any crime circumstance inadmissible. It is among the significant aspects of criminal culpability.
The two primary factors that helped to establish mens rea were the influence of Roman law and the application of Canon law. Roman law adhered slavishly to the principles of “dolus” and “culpa” for every offense. The Dolus Doctrine made a connection between the actor’s psychology and his unlawful act, as well as between the actor’s perception of the unlawful act, and the deed itself. Over time, the rule of canon law also grew. The canonists underlined the significance of the mental component in evaluating guilt and the requirement of finding subjective blameworthiness in order to identify the legal wrong perpetrated.
The Indian Penal Code of 1860 specifies a few prerequisites for mens rea in each of its sections. For instance, the presence of “dishonest intention” is a necessary element to prove theft under Section 378 of the IPC, 1860 . Thus, it is crucial for one to understand that the idea of mens rea is convoluted and nuanced.
In the current research paper researcher focuses on to explain what all factors constitute a men’s rea what principle lead to exception to the doctrine of men’s rea, scope of men’s rea in criminal act ,the paper also goes on to explain that whether men’s rea is a question of law only or just fact or both. The researcher further goes on to explain role of men’s against offences of body and property and also presents its opinion on the principle of men’s rea.
In conclusion, the concept of Mens rea under the Indian penal code of 1860 is an important pillar in the criminal justice system. It differentiates between wrongdoing committed by an accused with a guilty mentality and those resulting by negligence or accident.
The key objective of this study is to carry out a thorough investigation of the idea of “men’s rea” under criminal law. In order to better understand the mens rea theory in criminal law, this study will look at its different facets, dimensions, and ramifications. The following precise goals will be the subject of the research:
The primary research methodology employed in this research paper is a doctrinal approach However, to ensure that the study’s scope remains open and comprehensive, secondary and tertiary methods have also been incorporated. Consequently, the process of formulating and constructing the research proposal has adopted a clarifying and exploratory approach. Furthermore, the results and recommendations are assessed through fundamental and diagnostic methods to identify shortcomings and errors within the legal system.
Based on the results, websites, journals, articles, and books, a comprehensive report has been aimed to be created. The researcher used the qualitative technique to examine the data, which does not involve any calculation or numeration.
This article on “Mens rea” showcases the necessity for mental elements in the conviction of crime. It further explains the development of the concept and also particularises the general element with specific defences. It gives a wide range of concepts related to the present laws. However, the discussion in the paper is restricted and does not mention points of negligence, dishonesty, and fraud while dealing with other sections of the act.
A significant portion of this research study has been greatly influenced by the article “Mens rea and the Indian Penal Laws A study of emerging trends” This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the significance of mens rea in different offenses covered by the IPC,1860. Nevertheless, it does not provide a definitive conclusion regarding the extent of mens rea’s influence and what lies ahead in terms of its role in the present and future.
This article on “Criminality of Intention – How to Adjudge Mens Rea” encompasses the criminality of the acts done individually or jointly but with a common malicious intent and gives a detailed viewpoint on the prosecution of the case with respect to its liability being focused on account of actus reus and its relation with the mental element. The article however limits its topic to relation to mens rea against body and does not discuss the offences done against property with a common intention.
MENS REA UNDER INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Mens rea under Indian penal code,1860
The term ‘Mens rea’ has been widely used in the Indian penal code of 1860. For every criminal offence, there is an intention for it. The maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” states that Only when the mindset is likewise guilty does the act make one guilty. There is no definition or mention of the term “Mens rea” in Indian criminal law; rather, it uses the concept of the area around ‘Intention’ in committing the crime. It is complex to articulate the concept of intention. Despite being a widely used area, it defies a straightforward explanation. The guilty mindset or the intention has been mentioned under terms of “Voluntarily”, “fraudulently”, and “dishonestly” under sections 39, 25, and 24, respectively. Consequently, the state of a guilty mindset is prevalent in fraudulent, deceptive, or reckless mental state. Essentially, every crime constituted under the IPC incorporates the idea of mens rea, or malicious intent, in a particular manner. Under the umbrella of Mens rea, it contains terms of ‘Intention, knowledge, recklessness, purpose, and negligence’.
Essential Element of Mens rea
Example: If an individual intentionally attacks someone who intends to injure the victim, they are demonstrating criminal intent.
For instance, if someone strikes out with a large amount of force, she may not be doing so,primarily intending to hurt the said person. She would be guilty of criminal knowledge if shehad the knowledge that damage was a likely outcome of her acts.
Illustration: If a person injures someone while driving under the influence of alcohol, they may be charged with recklessly causing harm. Although they didn’t intend to harm anyone and didn’t anticipate it happening, they were aware of the risk of causing harm by driving while intoxicated.
In People v. Penny (1982), the defendant fired a gun into a crowd without aiming at anyone in particular; he was accused of reckless endangerment. According to the court, the defendant’s careless actions constituted mens rea and was liable for the offence due to his recklessness.
Illustration: If a minor or a child is hurt because of a caretaker’s negligence, then that person may be held criminally negligent.
State v. Hall (1995) The defendant was guilty of vehicular manslaughter for causing an accident due to reckless driving. The court held that the defendant’s failure to not exercise reasonable care while driving amounts to negligent mens rea, and he was liable for the offence.
Why the Correlation between Actus Reus and Mens Rea is necessary?
While constituting a criminal activity and making it an offence of crime, two essentialingredients must be fulfilled- Actus Reus, i.e., the actual physical element constituting a crime, and Mens Rea- a guilty intention/purpose to commit a crime. About the idea of chronological congruence, a criminal activity and criminal purpose/intention must occur at the precise same time. The Mens rea and the actus reus must come to a consensus with one another. For criminal activity to take place, not only are the two elements of crime required,but also a coincidence between the two should be taken into consideration.
If the actual injury or any harm caused is entirely different from what the accused initially intended to do and later leads to a separate and more severe crime, then he will not be held guilty of the latter harm, which is the severe crime.
Illustration– X hates Y and intends to kill him. X buys a piston and wants to shoot Y at night. Y was driving at night when X decided to follow him to kill him, so he aims the piston at Y but instead hit the car’s glass. As soon as he aims again, a speedy truck thrashes with Y’s car,causing the death of Y. Here, Although X had criminal intent and attempted to murder, he will not be held liable for the death of the deceased, Y.
The Court stated in “Mohindar Singh v. The State” that the presence of an actus reus and mens rea constitutes such an offence. A conviction is not conceivable without proof of the criminal activity, the guilty motive behind it, or proof of an act that wasn’t prompted by any intention or purpose of committing a crime. To prove both of the essential components of the crime’s commission, the prosecution must show that said accused had done something that, in accordance with the law, constituted a state of mind of guilty intention in committing an offense which he was driven by a desire to accomplish a particular objective.
WHETHER THE SCOPE OF MENS REA IS INHERENTLY LIMITED OR RESTRICTIVE IN NATURE?
A critical factor in evaluating criminal responsibility is mens rea, or the guilty mental state. Its scope is not, however, inherently constrained. Men’s rea is required to prove criminal intent, but it is not the only element in deciding responsibility. Men’s rea is not sufficient to punish an offender; there must also be an action taken to put the offender’s evil intent into practice.
The level of intent may occasionally be a key factor in determining the crime the accused committed. For instance, the degree of intent behind the behaviour decides whether an activity of “culpable homicide” can be classified as “murder” or “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”. The very existence of mens rea should be taken into account in situations other than murder, such as grave and sudden provocation that goes beyond a person’s right to self-defense and consent.
Furthermore, there are situations in which men’s rea is not necessary to prove guilt, known as strict liability offences. These crimes place punishment on the accused independent of their mental state, putting the emphasis on the act itself.
In conclusion, even if criminal responsibility requires mens rea, which is termed as essential element, its application is not inherently limited. Mens rea alone does not establish guilt; there must also be an action taken to put the offender’s evil intent into practice.
Is Mens Rea a mere question of law?
Men’s rea is not only a legal concern; it also involves questions of fact and the law. Multiple pieces of evidence, as well as the context of the behavior, must be used to infer mens rea.
The law outlines the different types of mens rea required for specific crimes, but the facts of each case will determine if the accused had possessed the required mens rea or not.
For instance, the law may stipulate that murder must be done with intent. On the factual question of whether the accused actually intended to kill the victim, the jury will decide. The jury will consider all the evidence, including the accused words, their actions, and the relevant facts of the case, to determine whether the defendant had the required mens rea.
The question of whether or not the accused had the required mens rea will therefore be decided by the jury. However, the law plays an important role in setting out the different types of mens rea that are required for different crimes and in interpreting the mens rea requirement in ambiguous cases.
MENS REA IN OFFENCES AGAINST BODY
The term “offences against the human body” is used to describe a wide variety of criminal offences, usually involving physical harm, the threat of physical damage, or other acts carried out against the will of the victim. Offences involving the human body are covered in Sections 299 to 377.
The Indian Penal Code ,1860 (hereafter, IPC) states broad explanations in the Chapter II, and Section 11 defines a person as any company, association, or group of people, whether or not they are legally recognised as such. Furthermore, Section 10 of the IPC defines the terms “men” and “women.” ‘Man’ refers to any male human being, regardless of age, while ‘Woman’ refers to any female human being, regardless of age. Usually, these offences involve employing force or inflicting physical injury on another individual. These crimes can be divided into one of four groups: a) fatal; b) non-fatal; c) sexual; and d) non-sexual.
In this chapter, the researcher will be dealing with offences against the body particularly – culpable homicide, voluntarily causing grievous hurt, assault, and abduction.
“Intention” is an essential factor in determining culpable homicide. The phrase “culpable” comes from the Latin term culpabilis, which means “to blame.” It is used in tandem with a “guilty mind” or “criminal intent.”
In the first instance, the intention refers to the mens rea of the accused having intended to cause death or has intended to commit the crime, which would result in the natural consequence of the act committed. For example, K stabs L in the latter’s vital organs, which resulted in L’s death. Here, K’s intention can be derived from the act of stabbing L.
In the second instance, the accused did not plan to commit death; instead, they wanted to inflict bodily harm that could potentially result in death. This is known as having the mens rea. It is clear that the accused intended to kill the victim if they use a sharp object to hurt the victim’s vital areas, such as the abdomen.
In the third situation, the term “intention” alludes to the mens rea, which states that even though the accused did not plan to kill the victim, they knew or should have known that the act they were about to commit would kill the victim.
Culpable homicide can be classified into a) murder & b) culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. Murder is included in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code,1860. The level of intention connected to an act performed by the accused would serve as the foundation for this classification. The following five exceptional circumstances have the power to exempt a case from Section 300’s definition of murder and explain why culpable homicide in accordance with that section does not constitute murder:
The offender’s purpose is the most crucial element that must be established in each of these exceptions. Whether a person goes beyond the bounds of their right to private defense or a public official goes beyond the authority granted to him by law, the act that goes beyond those bounds must be done in good faith and without any animosity toward the deceased. The level of purpose (mens rea) is crucial in evaluating the crime the accused committed in this instance as well.
The essential ingredient of Section 322 is intention. Here, the accused has the intent to cause grievous hurt or is aware that the commission of such an act would grievously hurt the victim. For example, Jeffrey, with an intention or knowing self to be likely permanently to disfigure Thomas’s face, gives Thomas a blow, which does not permanently disfigure Thomas’s face however causes him to suffer severe bodily pain for the space of twenty days. Jeffrey has voluntarily caused grievous hurt. Here, the mens rea can be derived through words like “intention” and “knowing”.
To invoke this provision, the Court must find that the accused had the intention to inflict harm or that he knew that grievous hurt was likely to occur and that such harm occurred. Even if the individual is aware that he is likely to inflict serious harm, he is said to be voluntarily committing grievous harm. It must be established that the person so accused either intended to results into substantial harm or knew he was likely to do so in order to be found guilty of doing so, and not otherwise.
The essence of the assault crime is intent. The apprehension must be such that accused acts with any knowledge or intention such that gesture or an action or preparation for using criminal force would cause the victim to fear danger or injury.
Illustration – Ramesh shakes his fist at Suresh, likely to intend or knowingly that he may thereof causing Suresh to believe that Ramesh is about to strike Suresh. Here, Ramesh has committed assault. In another instance, if Mahesh intentionally threatens Bhavesh with a knife, causing Bhavesh to fear an imminent attack, Mahesh can be charged with assault, even if Mahesh doesn’t physically harm Bhavesh.
Illustration: Z and Y are friends. X, who pretends to be a friend of Z, tells Y that Z is hospitalised and asks Y to accompany X to the hospital. In furtherance of this, Y goes with X. In this instance, X induces Y by deceitful means and commits the offence of abduction.
The word ‘deceitful means’ implies the fraudulent act or misrepresentation made by the accused to induce the victim. Fraud is any dishonest conduct or deliberate plan used with the goal to deny another person of their rights or harm them in some other way. It is always positive and intentional. In the case of R v. Corti, the court observed that consent obtained through fraud, misrepresentation or force would not be considered valid, and the accused would not be exempt from the offence. The accused’s intention is material to determine the guilt of the accused. Mens rea is extremely important to determine the crime of abduction. The definition of deceptive includes any remark that is misleading. The accused’s intention is the decisive factor in the offence of abduction. As a result, unlike in the case of kidnapping, where there is an irrelevancy of the intention of accused, the intent of accused creates the offence under Section 362. Though the term mens rea is not explicitly defined in the Code, certain words are utilised to identify mens rea in an infraction because the criminal intention of the accused plays such a crucial part in deciding the punishment for an offence.
“Fraudulently” is one of the terms used to account for mens rea in a crime, and deception is a crucial component of this phrase, emphasising the importance of mens rea.
In crimes against property, mens rea refers to the offender’s mindset or intent at the time of the offence. A conviction is essential for the prosecution because it shows whether the accused possessed the necessary guilty state. This introduction examines various levels of intent and how they relate to property crimes, highlighting the significance of establishing mens rea in separating accidental or innocent behaviour from criminal behaviour and impacting the harshness of punishment.
Property offences are the focus of the inquiry under this chapter. Since the beginning of civilization, gaining property has been a never-ending ambition due to the obvious nature of human nature. The idea of private property was to be protected by an individual’s own power in the absence of a centralised government. Later, private property came under the protection of the State thanks to statutory laws.
In this chapter, the researcher will be dealing with offences against the property particularly – theft, extortion, and robbery.
The wrongful removal of moveable goods “out of the possession of any person” without that person’s consent is referred to as “theft” under section 378 of the IPC.
Intention – When it comes to theft, intention plays a significant role.
Illustration: B was guilty of stealing if he took the car dishonestly from C with the goal of robbing him of the asset (the car) that served as security for B’s obligation and C kept the car with him legitimately. From the aforementioned situation, it may also be concluded that if someone steals something from someone else dishonestly, they may still be found guilty of stealing their own property.
Section 378, however, suggests that anything received by a claim of right cannot be obtained dishonestly so long as the claim is true, just, and proper. Thus, such a taking cannot be regarded as stealing.
The case R v. Morris addresses the topic of appropriation in theft, it was emphasised that an appropriation takes place when someone assumes the ownership rights of a piece of property.
Extortion is a crime that occurs when someone forces another person to give them money or property, intimidates them into giving it to them, or threatens them with harm if they don’t.Both movable and immovable objects can be used as the target of extortion.
Intention- In extortion cases, the accused must often have the intention to employ persuasion, threats, or physical force to take anything from the victim. This means that the extortionist must be aware or have a conscious desire that their acts will lead to the wrongful taking of the victim’s property or money.
This crime’s essential component is dishonesty. The primary need for extortion is that the inducement be false. It is not enough for a person to experience an unfair loss; the individual must be put in danger by someone who intends to cause them damage. It cannot be claimed that a recovery effort was initiated with the intention of causing the accused undue loss when the accused really believed the complainant had stolen the money.
R v Cunningham is a notable case pertaining to mens rea in extortion. The court, in this decision, clarified that mens rea in a criminal offence entails either a purpose to create the banned consequence or knowledge that the consequence is almost certain to occur as a result of the defendant’s acts.
Robbery is a criminal offence that includes other aspects in addition to stealing or extortion. It entails the use or threat of force, harm, or unjustifiable restraint to compel someone to hand over their possessions or property.
Intention – However robbery frequently consists of components like the intention to steal, the intention to use force or a threat against the victim.
In the case of State v. Wilson, the court talked about the mens rea necessary for robbery and emphasised that the defendant had to act intentionally or knowingly in order to commit the offence.
Mens rea, which refers to the guilty intent or state of mind, is a fundamental requirement for establishing criminal liability. It is crucial to ensure that justice is served to the victim. Typically, when an individual genuinely believes they are acting innocently, no crime is considered to have occurred. This idea has its conceptual foundation in the idea that everyone has the ability to tell what is good and wrong. After careful consideration, the researchers came to the conclusion that mens rea does not mandate punishment of the perpetrator alone. Alongside the presence of a guilty intention, there must be an act done to give a practical shape to the evil intention of the offender.
While in certain offences defined by the legal code, mens rea is presumed to exist at the time of the commission, it still leaves room for doubt and is not an absolute certainty. Therefore, there is an urgent need to re-evaluate these provisions within the legal code, eliminating ambiguity and refining the essential elements required to establish criminal liability in specific cases.
Furthermore, it is emphasised that the requirement for mens rea or its necessary implication should only be disregarded when doing so would contradict the purpose and objectives of the law.
