Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea explains that for any act to be illegal in

nature it must be done with a guilty mind. Thus to convict the defendant, it must
be proved that the criminal act was carried out with a criminal intend. Not only is
the act of the accused important but the intention of the accused to do the specific
act is equally important to prove the guilt of the accused. Thus it can be concluded
that mere commission of a criminal act or breach of law is not sufficient to
constitute a crime. It should be combined with the presence of wrongful intent.
Further the mens rea is important to understand the severity of the crime
committed. The essential ingredient is the blameworthy condition of the mind. Its
absence can negate the liability. However the statement without a guilty mind
there is no crime is subjected to certain exceptions such as strict liability. Under
strict liability, it is not necessary to show that a defendant possessed the
relevant mens rea for the act committed.

Origin

The two basic components of criminal law is Actus Reus and Mens Rea. Actus
Reus is the wrongful act committed and Mens Rea is the state of mind behind
such acts. The Latin maxim Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea is derived
from Mens Rea. Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea further explains as to
how Mens Rea is applicable in criminal law. It states that a person is guilty of a
criminal act only if such acts are accompanied by a criminal intention. This
maxim is used to determine whether an act committed is criminal in nature or not.
Sever penal actions are required for crimes committed with specific intend and
not for unanticipated or unintentional acts. However no breach of law can be left
unpunished. Thus this maxim is established to differentiate between intentional
and unintentional criminal act so that the quantum of punishment can be decided
accordingly.

Illustration

When a person is attacked by another person with an intention to cause grievous

hurt or injury then it is a crime. But when the person who was attacked causes
injury to the other person in private defence then it is an unintentional act. In the
first scenario guilty mind was present but in the second case no intention of
causing harm was there. The second act is categorised as self defence and is dealt
under section 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code. In the first act the person is
guilty of criminal act.