OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LAW

Actus Reus

➢ The physical element of a crime is known as Actus Reus.

➢ In civil cases, the accused must have done or failed to do something that caused injury
to the plaintiff, or victim.
➢ There can be no crime and no suit for damages without a criminal act. However, an
act by itself does not constitute a crime; rather, the person's intent as well as the act
itself, if it is forbidden, combine to produce the crime.
➢ In other cases, the circumstances of the case are also taken into account, and they are
frequently utilised to either show guilt definitively or to prove reasonable doubt of
intent.
➢ Actus Reus can also refer to the failure to perform an act that the accused is aware he
is obligated to undertake by duty or law.

Mens Rea

➢ Mens rea is a crucial factor in determining whether or not an act is criminal.

➢ Mens rea refers to the accused's explicit purpose to commit the crime for which he is
charged.
➢ The accused must be found guilty of committing the offence with full awareness of
their acts and malafide intent toward the victim.
➢ Mens rea is also employed in some legal cases, requiring the defendant to be
cognizant of the consequences of their acts in order for civil culpability to arise,
although in most civil matters, the Actus Reus takes precedence.
➢ Furthermore, an act can be voluntary or involuntary, and the specifics of the situation
decide the culpability.
➢ Though a person drives while inebriated and inadvertently harms others, he is still
culpable because he chose to drink before driving, even if the act was unintended. If,
on the other hand, a normally healthy individual has a heart attack while driving and
inadvertently causes harm to others, he is not culpable and is not guilty of the crime.

Strict liability

➢ Mens rea isn't relevant in some circumstances because of a strict liability clause.
➢ The selling of alcohol or cigarettes to minors, as well as statutory rape, are prime
instances. It makes no difference whether the accused thought his conduct were legal;
he will still be found guilty.
➢ Actus Reus is sufficient in such situations to demonstrate guilt and win a conviction
from a competent court of law.
Knowledge, Intention, Negligence and Recklessness

➢ Intention refers to a goal or desire to achieve a specific outcome or foreknowledge

that certain repercussions will result from a person's actions.
➢ Intention and knowledge are different. Knowledge can be used to infer an intention to
conduct an offence, albeit intention and knowledge can sometimes overlap. The
awareness of the repercussions of an action is known as knowledge. One may be
aware of the consequences of his actions, even though he has no intention of causing
them.
➢ A person who is reckless has foreseen the possible repercussions of his actions but
does not want or seek to bring them about. If a person foresees the likelihood of
something happening, but doesn't care what happens, they are considered to be
reckless in terms of the implications of their actions. In all of these situations, the
perpetrator is considered to be unconcerned about the consequences of his or her
actions. To put it another way, recklessness is a mental attitude that ignores clear
danger.
➢ Negligence is defined as failing to do something that a prudent and reasonable person
would do or doing something that a prudent and reasonable person would not do
based on the considerations that normally govern the conduct of human affairs. In
contrast to torts, negligence is not a common ground for responsibility in crimes.

Four stages of commission of crime

1. Intention: The first stage occurs when the perpetrator considers or intends to conduct
an offence. The motive and plan to conduct the crime are facilitated at this stage.
However, no offence is penalised at this time because intent is a mental construct that
is impossible to show with certainty.
2. Preparation: The perpetrator prepares to conduct the crime in the second step. At this
point, the necessary resources to commit the crime are assembled. Preparation and
intent alone are not punished under the IPC since the accused may choose to refrain
from performing the crime. Warfare, dacoity, counterfeiting money, and depredation
against territories of Power at Peace with Government, on the other hand, are criminal
at the planning stage, as merely planning such activities is deemed a crime against
society.
3. Attempt: It refers to an attempt to commit a crime that fails owing to circumstances
beyond the attempter's control. It fails because to external conditions that are beyond
the attempter's control.
A person commits the offence of ‘attempt to commit a particular offence’ when
a. He intends to commit a particular offence
b. He makes preparation for it
c. Does any act towards its commission?
 An attempt to commit an offence begins when the preparation is completed and a step
toward committing an actual crime is taken; however, such a step must be indicative
of the intention to commit an actual crime; there must be a proximate relationship
between the two, i.e., if the interruption had not been caused by an external factor,
crime would have been the only outcome.
4. Accomplishment: This is the final stage of the criminal process. The offence is
committed or accomplished at this point, i.e., the offender succeeds in his attempt and
causes the hurt. Finally, the accused is found guilty of the crime and sentenced to the
provisions of the Indian Penal Code. In general, there is no criminal culpability if a
conduct is limited to the first two steps. It would be impossible to prove that an
accused's intent was to commit an offence if purpose and preparation were rendered
punished. The third stage is when the issue of liability emerges. It is a question of
proof whether the act is in the second stage or has progressed to the third step.