Essential Elements of Crime

(For B.A. LL.B 5th Sem 2021-26)

[Sections A+B+C+D]
By: Anil K. Thakur (Asst. Prof.)
Lloyd Law College
Last updated: Aug, 2023
General Principles of Crime

 Topics Covered:
 Brief Historical background of IPC
 Elements of crime
 Concept of Strict & Absolute Liability in
Criminal Cases
Brief Historical background of IPC
 The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is the main criminal code of India.
It is a comprehensive code intended to cover all substantive
aspects of criminal law.
 The code was drafted in 1860 on the recommendations of first
law commission of India established in 1834 under the
Government of India Act 1833 under the Chairmanship of
Thomas Babington Macaulay.
 It came into force in British India during the early British Raj
period in 1862. However, it did not apply automatically in the
Princely states, which had their own courts and legal systems
until the 1940s. The Code came into operation on 1st January
1862.
 Macaulay did not survive to see his masterpiece come into
force having died near the end of 1859.
 The Code has since been amended several times and is now
supplemented by other criminal provisions.
Essential Elements of Crime
4 essential elements of a crime are:-
(1) the crime must be committed by a person
(2) there must exist an actus reus,
(3) there must be a mens rea to commit the crime, with
certain exceptions.
(4) there must be injury caused to another person
 human being
(accused person)
1. crime must be committed by a person (Human being)

 The basic essential element of any crime is that it must be committed by a

human being (person) who is under the legal obligation to act in a particular
manner, as an animal cannot commit a crime.
 Animals used to be punished in ancient times, now their owners are made
liable.
 Section 11 of the IPC states that the word ‘person’ includes a company, an
association or a body of persons, whether incorporated or not.
 The word ‘person’ includes artificial or juridical persons.
 Therefore, even a trust, an NGO and a company can commit offences.
 Furthermore, certain offences can implicate more than one person for the
same crime. In such cases, all persons will face trial and may have to face
punishment together.

Criminal Liability of a Corporation
 Originally the prevalent view was that a corporation or a body incorporate,
which is separate legal entity, because of procedural difficulties cannot be
charged of offences.

 The obvious reasons were that a corporation could not be either arrested or
compelled to remain present during criminal proceedings; and neither it
could form the required intention to commit a crime, owing to the absence of
mind.

 However, with the course of time the concept of corporate criminal

responsibility evolved to the extent that the non liability of a corporation
soon gave way to the idea that it can be made liable for omission to act.

 The corporation or body incorporate can be convicted for a statutory

offence, if a statutory duty casted upon the corporation or a body corporate
is not performed.
Criminal Liability of a Corporation
 A corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own
any more than it has a body of its own, its active and
directing will must consequently be sought in the person of
somebody who for some purposes may be called an agent,
but who is really the directing mind and will of the
corporation.

 The Board of directors are brains of a company which is

the body and the company can and does only act through
them.
State of Maharashtra v. Syndicate Transport Company Pvt. Ltd, AIR 1964
Bom 195
 In this case it was held that the question whether a
corporate body should or should not be liable for criminal
action resulting from the acts of some individual must
depend on the nature of offence disclosed by the
allegations in the complaint or in the charge-sheet, the
relative position of the officer or agent vis-à-vis the
corporate body and other relevant facts and circumstances
which could show that the corporate body, as such, meant
or intended to commit that act.
The state of Maharashtra vs. Syndicate Transport Company
Pvt. Ltd

 The case of State of Maharashtra v. Syndicate Transport

Company Pvt. Ltd, deals with the question as to whether a
corporate body is liable for punishment of offence
involving men’s rea.
 It also highlights the criminal liability for breach of trust
and cheating under Section 406, 403 and Section 420 of
the Indian Penal Code.
Facts:
 Kmart motors received a letter requesting an advanced
amount of Rs.11,000 for purchasing a diesel engine for the
company by Mr Manohar (Opp. No. 2).
 The letter stated the said diesel engine shall be filled in
company’s bus no. BYY-610 and then the bus be transferred in
his name. The bus shall be run by the company on hire
purchase agreement till the advance amount of Rs.11,000 is
satisfied. However, after receiving the amount the engine was
fitted to another bus and no transfer of bus took place.
 The Complainant filed a complaint against the company’s
managing director, another Director and a shareholder under
Section 420 and Section 406 or 403 of Indian Penal Code, on
which the Magistrate passed a separate order charging its
Managing Director Chinta, shareholder and Director
Harinarayan under Section 420 of IPC and discharged their
directors.
Issue:

 Whether a company can be prosecuted for an

offence involving men’s rea under IPC ?
 Judgement:
 In the given situation, though the company may have
reaped the benefits of the diesel engine fitted into the bus,
the company cannot be attributed to the false or dishonest
representation or misappropriation made by the
shareholder Manohar. So, it would not be permissible to
direct the Magistrate to proceed with a charge under
Section 406 and 403 of IPC against the company.
 On the basis of the above facts and observations, the Court
accepted the reference quashing the charge framed
against M/s. Syndicate Transport Company Pvt. Ltd.
However, the Magistrate shall be at liberty to arrive at his
conclusion and findings on the evidence presented before
him.

ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. and Others v. Directorate of
Enforcement, (2004)6 SCC
 In this case, a five judge constitution bench of the apex court
reiterated that a corporation or a company, by virtue of sections
2 and 11 of the IPC, is a 'person' and it, theoretically, can be
prosecuted for an offence punishable under law.
 The apex court ruled that there is no immunity to a company or
corporation from prosecution mainly because the prosecution
is in respect of offences for which the punishment prescribed is
mandatory corporeal punishment.
 The court stressed that company or corporation should not be
allowed to go scot free merely on the ground that it technically
cannot be punished by way of imprisonment.
 The apex court ruled that a company or corporation can be
charged with offence punishable with mandatory fine and
imprisonment, but the punishment can only be limited to a fine.
Facts:
 The appellant in the present case filed a writ petition vide
Appeal No. 1748 of 1999 before the High Court of Bombay
challenging various notices issued to them under Section 50
read with Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,
1973.
 The appellant company in the High Court contended that it was
not liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 56 of
the FERA Act.
 The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, dated 7thNovember,
1998, the appellant contended that no criminal proceedings
can be initiated against the appellant-company for the offence
under Section 56(1) of the FERA Act as the minimum
punishment prescribed under Section 56(1)(i) is imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than six months and with
fine.
Issues of Consideration:
 The main issues for consideration are as follows –
 Whether a company or a corporate body could be
prosecuted for offences for which the sentence of
imprisonment is a mandatory punishment?
 Where an accused is found guilty and the punishment to
be imposed is imprisonment and fine, whether the court
has got the discretion to impose the sentence of fine
alone?
Judgement:
 The majority view was given by K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J., Arun Kumar, J. and
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.
 Reference was made to Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code in which the
“person” is defined as: “The word “person” includes any Company or
Association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not
 Reference was also made to the 41st and 47th law commission report in
which the law commission stated that – “In every case in which the offence
is only punishable with imprisonment or with imprisonment and fine and
the offender is a company or other body corporate or an association of
individuals, it shall be competent to the court to sentence such offender to
fine only.”
 These recommendations have not been acted upon, though several other
recommendations made by the 47th Report of the Law Commission have
been accepted and implemented by Parliament vide the Taxation Laws
(Amendment) Act, 1975. Hence, the state of law as noticed by the Law
Commission continues.
 Judgement:
 The judges further went on saying that it is true that all penal statutes are to
be strictly construed in the sense that the Court must see that the thing
charged as an offence is within the plain meaning of the words used and
must not strain the words on any notion that there has been a slip that the
thing is so clearly within the mischief that it must have been intended to be
included and would have included if thought of.
 Further, all penal provisions like all other statutes are to be fairly construed
according to the legislative intent as expressed in the enactment.
 In the present matter the legislative intent to prosecute corporate bodies for
the offence committed by them is clear and explicit and the statute never
intended to exonerate them from being prosecuted.
 According to them it would be sheer violence to common sense that the
legislature intended to punish the corporate bodies for minor offences and
extended immunity of prosecution to major and grave economic crimes.
The bench doubted the correctness of the its earlier decision

 In ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. and Others v. Directorate of

Enforcement, (2004)6 SCC 531 the Supreme Court doubted
the correctness of its decision in Assistant Commissioner,
Assessment-II Bangalore & Ors vs. Velliappa Textiles Ltd & Anr.
(2003) 11 SCC 405 and
 held that the decision in Velliappa Textiles case needs
reconsideration by a Constitution Bench for an authoritative
pronouncement on the subject.
 For the above reasons SC rejected the argument on behalf of
the appellants that Corporations cannot be prosecuted under
Section 56 of the FERA for the reason that mandatory
punishment of imprisonment cannot be imposed on
Corporations.
current position
 Thus, after this case the current position is that
corporations can no longer claim immunity from criminal
prosecution on the grounds that they are incapable of
possessing the necessary mens rea for the commission
of criminal offences.
 The notion that a corporation cannot be held liable for
the commission of a crime had been rejected.
 mens rea

Mental State (Mens Rea)

2. mens rea
 The second element, which is an important essential of a
crime, is mens rea or guilty mind.
 It is a necessary element, the criminal act must be
voluntary or purposeful.
 Mens rea is the mental intention (mental fault), or the
accused's state of mind at the time of the offense, called
the guilty mind.
 it’s what was the accused's mental state and what did the
accused intend when the crime was committed.
 The mental element or mens rea in modern times means
that the person’s conduct must be voluntary and it must
also be actuated by a guilty mind
mens rea
 In the entire field of criminal law there is no important
doctrine than that of mens rea.
 It stems from the ancient maxim of obscure origin,
"actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" which
means "the act is not guilty unless the mind is guilty.“
 mens rea is the state of mind indicating culpability,
which is required by statute as an element of a crime.
 It is commonly taken to mean some blameworthy mental
condition, whether constituted by intention or knowledge
or otherwise, the absence of which on any particular
occasion negatives the intention of a crime.
 mens rea
 It is also one of the essential ingredients of criminal
liability (certain exceptions are there)
 As a general rule (exceptions are there) every crime
requires a mental element, the nature of which will depend
upon the definition of the particular crime in question.
 Even in crimes of strict liability some mental element is
required.
 Because of the potentially severe consequences of
criminal conviction, judges at common law also sought
proof of an intent to do some bad thing, the mens rea or
guilty mind.
 Different Expressions used in IPC

 Expressions used in different sections of IPC connoting the

requirement of a mental element include: intentionally,
knowingly, with intent, recklessly, unlawfully, maliciously,
willfully, knowing or believing, fraudulently, dishonestly,
corruptly, allowing, and permitting.
 Each of these expressions is capable of bearing a meaning,
which differs from that ascribed to any other.
 The meaning of each must be determined in the context in
which it appears, and the same expression may bear a
different meaning in different contexts.
almost all offences require mens rea

 Under the IPC, guilt in respect of almost* all offences is

fastened either on the ground of intention or knowledge
or reason to believe.
 All the offences under the Code are qualified by one or
the other words such as wrongful gain or wrongful loss,
dishonestly, fraudulently, reason to believe, criminal
knowledge or intention, intentional co-operation,
voluntarily, malignantly, wantonly etc.
 *few exceptions are there discussed in subsequent PPTs
For example:
 Some crimes – particularly modern regulatory offenses
– require no mens rea, and they are known as strict
liability offenses

 For example: Under the Section 185 in The Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 it is a strict liability offence to drive
a vehicle with an alcohol concentration above the
prescribed limit (30 mg per 100 ml).
almost all offences require mens rea
 All these words describe the mental condition required at the
time of commission of the offence, in order to constitute an
offence.
 Thus, though the word mens rea as such is nowhere found in
the IPC, its essence is reflected in almost all the provisions of
the code.
 The existence of the mental element or guilty mind or mens
rea at the time of commission of the actus reus or the act
alone will make the act an offence.
 As to crimes of which both actus reus and mens rea are the
requirements or we can say are essential, judges have
concluded that the elements must be present at precisely the
same moment and it is not enough that they occurred
sequentially at different times.
 almost all offences require mens rea
 Generally, subject to both qualification and exception, a
person is not criminally liable for a crime unless he
intends to cause, foresees that he will probably cause, or
at the lowest, foresees that he may cause, the elements
which constitute the crime in question.
 it is impossible to ascribe any particular meaning to the
term mens rea, concepts such as those of intention,
recklessness and knowledge are commonly used as the
basis for criminal liability.
 mens rea allows the criminal justice system to
differentiate between someone who did not mean to
commit a crime and someone who intentionally set out to
commit a crime.
Let’s take an example
 Imagine two drivers who end up hitting and killing a
pedestrian.
 Driver 1 never saw the person until it was too late, tried
his best to apply brake, but could do nothing to stop the
accident and in fact ended up killing the pedestrian.
 Driver 1 is still liable, but likely only in civil court for
monetary damages.
 Let’s take an example
 Driver 2, on the other hand, had been out looking for the
pedestrian and upon seeing him, steered towards him, hit
the accelerator and slammed into him, killing him
instantly.
 Driver 2 is probably criminally liable because he intended
to kill the pedestrian, or at least he intended to cause
serious bodily harm.
 Even though the pedestrian is killed in both scenarios (the
outcome is the same), the intent of both drivers was very
different and their punishments will be substantially
different as a result.
Exception to mens rea
 It is almost always necessary to prove mens rea.
 It is to be proven that the accused really had the intention
to cause such harm to the other person and also knows
about the consequences of his action.
 Exception to mens rea is the “Strict Liability offences” in
which punishments are provided even when the act is
done without a guilty intent.
 Mens rea under IPC
 The word mens rea have nowhere been used in the Indian
Penal Code but it has been applied in two different ways:-
 While defining offences some words used in the respective
section which indicate the actual criminal intent required for
the offence. Such words are knowingly, intentionally,
fraudulently, dishonestly, voluntarily etc.
 Such words haven’t been used in case of offences which can’t
be committed by an innocent person. Such offences are
Waging War against Government (Section 121), Sedition
(Section 124-A) and Counterfeiting of Coins (Section 232) etc.
 IPC also contains a separate Chapter i.e. Chapter IV on
General Exceptions (Section 76 to 106) which indicates the
circumstances where the absence of criminal intent may be
presumed.
Words denoting mens rea in IPC

 It must ne noted that the word ‘mens rea’ is not used in

Indian Penal Code but there are some words used in the
Indian Penal Code which denote the presence of Mens
rea in Indian Penal Code, such words are explained
hereinafter –
Fraudulently
 Generally, the term ‘Fraud’ means 'the willful, misstatement about material
fact of a thing’.
 According to Section 25 of the code – “A person is said to do a thing
fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise”.
 The term ‘fraud’ has been defined under Section 17 of Indian Contract Act,
1872 which has received a meaning much extensive for the purpose of the
code. Section 17 of Indian Contract Act provides that - ‘Fraud’ means and
includes any of the following acts committed by the party to a contract, or
with the connivance or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party
thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract
 (1) The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not
believe it to be true ;
 (2) The active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of
the fact;
 (3) A promise made without any intention of performing it;
 Queen Empress V/s Soshi Bhushan
15A.210:A.W.N.(1893)96
 In this Case accused applied for admission to LL.B.
(Final) class in Benaras University alleging that he had
attended LL.B. (Previous) class in Lucknow Canning
College. He was admitted and required to produce a
certificate in support of proof of having passed LL.B.
(Previous) examination.
 He produced a forged certificate and it was held that
he acted fraudulently.
Dishonestly –
 Generally, ‘Dishonestly’ means ‘unchaste, shameful, or
characterized by lack of truth, honesty’.
 According to Section 24 of the IPC ‘Dishonestly’ means –
 “Whoever does anything with the intention of causing
wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another,
is said to do that thing dishonestly”.
 For Example – ‘A’ is entitled to the possession of his
house from ‘z’ and sued him for the arrears of rent on the
basis of rent note, which was found to be forged.
 Thus, he is not entitled to get the rent as per that rent
note and as ‘A’s intention to cause wrongful gain to
himself so he is said to do that thing dishonestly.
 Krishan Kumar v/s. Union of India AIR 1959 SC 1390

 In this case the Court has held that Wrongful gain

includes wrongful retention and wrongful loss includes
being kept out of the property as well as being wrongfully
deprived of property.
 Therefore when a particular thing has gone into the
hands of a servant he will be guilty of misappropriating
the thing in all circumstances which show a malicious
intent to deprive the master of it.
Facts of the case last cited
 The appellant was employed as an Assistant Store Keeper
in the Central Tractor Organisation, Delhi. He took delivery
of a consignment of iron and steel received by rail for the
Organisation and removed them from the railway siding.
The goods did not reach the Organisation.
 The appellant absented himself from duty on the following
days and when he was called he gave a false explanation
that he had not taken delivery of the goods. The appellant
was tried for misappropriation of the goods, under S.
5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Facts of the case last cited
 He took the defence that he had moved the goods to
another siding but this was not accepted and the appellant
was convicted.
 The appellant contended that his conviction was bad as
the prosecution had failed to prove that he converted the
goods to his own use and did not apply them to the
purpose for which he had received them. Held, that the
appellant had been rightly convicted.
 The offence of misappropriation was established when the
prosecution proved that the servant received the goods,
that he was under a duty to account to his master and that
he had not done so.
‘fraudulently’ and dishonestly’ have been jointly used in
IPC

 There are some Sections in Indian Penal Code, where the

words ‘fraudulently’ and dishonestly’ have been jointly
used.
 Such sections are Section 209, 246, 247, 415, 421,
422, 423, 424, 464, 471 and 496 IPC.
Voluntarily: –
 Generally, the word ‘voluntarily’ means 'an act done
without influence or compulsion'.
 According to Section 39 of the IPC- “A person is said to
cause an effect voluntarily when he causes it by means
which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or
had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.”
 The word ‘voluntarily’ as used in Section 39 takes into
account not only intention but also knowledge and
reasonable grounds of belief.
 Voluntarily causing an effect -
(a) with intention to cause the effect,
(b) with the knowledge of the likelihood of causing the effect.
(c) having reason to believe that the effect is likely to be
caused.
Queen Empress V/s Raghu Nath Rai & others,
[Allahabad High Court Aug 6, 1892]

 In this case, a person took away a calf from another’s

house without his knowledge and consent in order to
save it from slaughter.
 The accused was held guilty of theft and rioting although
he acted with the best of motive to save the life of the
sacred cow.
Factors to be considered
 Thus, mens rea refers to intention, while the actus reus
refers to an action.
 In any criminal case, the action, as well as the intention,
must be established for a person to be charged with a
crime.
 The degree and the kind of causation must also be
considered.
 Also, all legitimate defenses, mitigating factors, and
justifying circumstances must be taken into account for a
criminal charge to be determined.
Factors to be considered

 A person can be found guilty of a crime when he or she

has committed the crime: Purposefully, intentionally,
Knowingly, Recklessly, or Negligently.
 The first two of the above constitute more serious crimes
and are categorized as “intentional” crime. The latter two
are considered less serious crimes and are categorized as
‘unintentional’ crime. The two crimes entail different
punishment.
How can mens rea impact a defense ?
 In IPC under Chapter IV Sections 76 to 106 wherein acts otherwise
would constitute offences ceased to be so under certain
circumstances set out in the various sections.
 Therefore, these exceptions are in itself a recognition of the
principle of mens rea.
 It deals with general exceptions which contains conditions when
the actions occur but the person is not in a state that they can have
any kind of guilty intention to do it.
 Basically in that chapter the section contains conditions in which a
prohibited action has taken place but the person doing it cannot
possibly have Mens Rea i.e., a guilty intent to commit such crime.
 There are various conditions in which a person is unable to have
mens rea such as when a person is of unsound mind, involuntarily
intoxicated, minor, working in good faith, bound by their
occupation, mistaken by facts etc.
 How can mens rea impact a defense ?
 The only trouble is to prove whether or not Mens Rea was present
because it is tough to estimate what actually goes on inside the
mind of any person. If once the exception is proven, criminal
liability does not arise and the person can be excused for such
crime.
 In Indian criminal law, it is considered that a certain section of
people are not capable of having a guilty intention even if they
have committed a prohibited act. And hence lack of guilty
intention makes the action not a crime and can be excused.
 This category includes- a person of unsound mind, minor and a
person under who while committing the action was under the
influence of alcohol/drugs.
 These also come under the Chapter –IV ‘General Exceptions’ in IPC
including sections 76-106.
 In detail these defences are explained in ppts of general
exceptions.
 Intention, Motive, Volition:
 The intention is divisible into immediate and ulterior intent. A crime is
seldom committed for its own sake. There is an ulterior object in the
commission of the crime.
 For example, when a robber robs a person his immediate intention is to
rob him, but the ultimate or ulterior intent is to purchase food or wine for
himself. The ulterior object is called motive, while the immediate action is
intention.
 Volition is will power that keeps you going throughout the entire process
from start to finish. As a general rule, a man’s motive is irrelevant in
determining the question of criminal liability. No act otherwise lawful
becomes unlawful because it has been done with a bad motive and
conversely, an act otherwise unlawful cannot be excused because of the
good motives of the doer of the act.
 The law, therefore, takes into account the primary or immediate intention
and not the ulterior, remote, or secondary. The law does not concern with
motive, which may be good, bad, or indifferent. The end cannot justify the
means and so the motive cannot justify the intention. But sometimes,
motive plays an important role. (see the last part of answer)
Motive
 Motive is the psychological phenomena which compels a person to do
a particular act. For example: ambition, jealously, fear etc.
 Motive is something which leads or tempts the mind to indulge in an
act or which compels the mind to do an act.
 According to Austin, motive is like a spring. It pushes the intention
further.
 In contrast, intention is the aim of the act. Motive is something which
triggers mens rea. Motive can be good or bad.
 For instance, a person may commit theft to feed poor people. His
motive is good, i.e., helping the poor. However, his intention is to
commit a crime to achieve that motive.
 Motive may be relevant to find out the guilt of the accused but is not an
ingredient of crime.
Intention and Motive:
 Sometimes, motive plays an important role and becomes a
compelling force to commit a crime and, therefore, motive
behind the crime become a relevant factor for knowing the
intention of a person.
 In Om Prakash v. State of Uttranchal [(2003) 1 SCC 648] and
State of UP v. Arun Kumar Gupta [(2003) 2 SCC 202] the
Supreme Court rejected the plea that the prosecution could
not signify the motive for the crime holding that failure to
prove motive is irrelevant in a case wherein the guilt of the
accused is proved otherwise.
 motive is not an essential element of an offence but motive
helps us to know the intention of a person. Motive is relevant
and important on the question of intention.
 Om Prakash v. State of Uttranchal (2003) 1 SCC 648

 The appellant-accused was working as a domestic

servant in the house of retired Brigadier Shyam Lal
Khanna. According to the findings of the Sessions Court
and the High Court, the accused put an end to the life of
three members of the family including Mr. Khanna and
endeavored to kill the informant Mrs. Khanna. The
appellant was charged under Sections 302 and 307 IPC.
 Another person by named Nitish with whose sister the
appellant had illicit intimacy was also charged
under Section 120B IPC.
State of UP v. Arun Kumar Gupta (2003) 2 SCC 202

 The respondent herein and five others were charged for offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 364 IPC before the Trial Court
at Unnao for having caused the death of one Rakesh Kalra.
 The learned Sessions Judge while acquitting five of the accused
persons found the respondent herein guilty of offence punishable
under Section 302 for which he was awarded death penalty. The
respondent was found guilty of offence under Section 364 IPC for
which he was awarded life imprisonment.
 As stated above the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by
the High Court, while the reference made by the Sessions Judge
was rejected consequently, the judgment and conviction recorded
by the Trial Court came to be set aside.
 The prosecution case in brief is that deceased, Rakesh was a good
friend of respondent and he had lent a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the
respondent, which the respondent was avoiding to pay in spite of
the repeated request from the deceased.
Intention:
 To intend is to have in mind a fixed purpose to reach a
desired objective; it is used to denote the state of mind of
a man who not only foresees but also desires the possible
consequences of his conduct.
 The idea foresees but also desires the possible
consequences of his conduct.
 The idea of ‘intention’ in law is not always expressed by
the words ‘intention’, ‘intentionally’ or ‘with intent to’.
 It is expressed also by words such as ‘voluntarily’, ‘wilfully’
or ‘deliberately’ etc.
Transferred intention:
 Where a person intends to commit a particular crime and
brings about the elements which constitute that crime, he
may be convicted notwithstanding that the crime takes effect
in a manner which was unintended or unforeseen.
 A, intends to kill B by poisoning. A places a glass of milk with
poison on the table of B knowing that at the time of going to
bed B takes glass of milk. On that fateful night instead of B,
C enters the bedroom of B and takes the glass of milk and
dies in consequence.
 A is liable for the killing of C under the principle of
transferred intention or malice the case will be covered under
the common law doctrine of 'transferred malice'
incorporated in Section 301 IPC
Intention and Motive:
 Intention and motive are often confused as being one and
the same.
 The two, however, are distinct and have to be distinguished.
 The mental element of a crime ordinarily involves no
reference to motive.
 Motive is something which prompts a man to form an
intention.
 Intention has been defined as the fixed direction of the mind
to a particular object, or determination to act in a particular
manner and it is distinguishable from motive which incites or
stimulates action.
 Intention and Knowledge:
 The terms ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’ which denote mens rea
appear in Sections 299 and 300, having different
consequences.
 Intention and knowledge are used as alternate ingredients to
constitute the offence of culpable homicide.
 However, intention and knowledge are two different things.
 Intention is the desire to achieve a certain purpose while
knowledge is awareness on the part of the person concerned of
the consequence of his act of omission or commission,
indicating his state of mind.
 The demarcating line between knowledge and intention is no
doubt thin, but it is not difficult to perceive that they connote
different things.
Intention and Knowledge:
 There may be knowledge of the likely consequences without
any intention to cause the consequences.
 For example, a mother jumps into a well along with her child in
her arms to save herself and her child from the cruelty of her
husband. The child dies but the mother survives. The act of the
mother is culpable homicide. She might not have intended to
cause death of the child but, as a person having prudent
mind, which law assumes every person to have, she ought to
have known that jumping into the well along with the child was
likely to cause the death of the child.
 She ought to have known as prudent member of the society
that her act was likely to cause death even when she may not
have intended to cause the death of the child.
 Negligence:
 If anything is done without any advertence to the consequent
event or result, the mental state in such situation signifies
negligence. The event may be harmless or harmful; if harmful
the question arises whether there is legal liability for it.
 In civil law (common law) it is decided by considering
whether or not a reasonable man in the same circumstances
would have realized the prospect of harm and would have
stopped or changed his course so as to avoid it.
 If a reasonable man would not, then there is no liability and
the harm must lie where it falls.
Negligence:
 The word ‘negligence’, therefore, is used to denote
blameworthy inadvertence. It should be recognized that
at common law there is no criminal liability for harm thus
caused by inadvertence.
 Strictly speaking, negligence may not be a form of mens
rea. It is more in the nature of a legal fault.
 However, it is made punishable for a utilitarian purpose
of hoping to improve people’s standards of behaviour.
Negligence:

 Crimes of negligence may be created by statute, and a

statute may provide that it is a defense to charges
brought under its provisions for the accused to prove that
he was not negligent.
 Advertent & inadvertent negligence
 Advertent negligence is commonly termed as willful
negligence or recklessness.
 In other words, inadvertent negligence may be distinguished
as simple.
 In the former i.e. advertent negligence the harm done is
foreseen as possible or probable but it is not willed.
 In the latter it is neither foreseen nor willed.
 In each case carelessness, i.e. to say indifference as to the
consequences, is present; but in the advertent negligence
this indifference does not, while in the inadvertent
negligence it does prevent these consequences from being
foreseen.
Advertent & inadvertent negligence
 The physician who treats a patient improperly through ignorance or
forgetfulness is guilty of simple or inadvertent negligence; but if he
does the same in order to save himself from trouble, or by way of a
scientific experiment with full recognition of the danger so incurred,
his negligence is willful.
 It may be important to state here that the willful wrong doer is liable
because he desires to do the harm; the negligent wrong doer is
liable because he does not sufficiently desire to avoid it.
 He who will excuse himself on the ground that he meant no evil is
still open to the reply: perhaps you did not, but at all event you might
have avoided it if you had sufficiently desired to do so; and you are
held liable not because you desired the mischief, but because you
were careless and indifferent.

 It is on this ground that negligence is treated as a form of mens rea,

standing side by side with wrongful intention as a formal ground of
responsibility.
degrees of Mens Rea
 The degrees of mens rea are:

 Intention: Complete knowledge of harm and its

consequences.
 Knowledge: No intention, but knowledge of an apparent harm.
 Reason to Believe: No particular information, but some
reason to believe of the consequences of the act.
 Recklessness: Higher degree of negligence, aware of
consequences.
 Negligence: Not aware of consequences.
 Factors examined to establish mens rea

 The act can be done voluntary or involuntary, and the guilt is determined
by the facts of the case. Mens Rea as such is not punishable.
 The following factors are examined to establish Mens Rea:
 Previous relation between the accused and the victim, any object of
hostility between them.
 Existence of instigation i.e. whether accused was hired and what
prompted him to commit crime?
 Whether the accused had something to gain out of the whole affair?
 Illustration: A person drives under influence of intoxication and
causes an accident which harms others. He will be held
responsible for his actions as he voluntarily made a choice to drink
and drive, even if the crime itself was unintentional.
Nathulal vs. State of M.P (AIR 1966 SC 43)

 In this case, the accused was a food grain dealer who

applied for a licence and deposited the requisite licence
fee. Without knowledge of rejection of his application,
he purchased food grains and sent returns to the
Licencing Authority, who on checking, found that it was
in excess of the quantity permitted by Section 7 of MP
Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958.
 The accused was prosecuted. However, he was
acquitted on the ground that he had no guilty mind.
 State of Maharashtra v. M H George
(AIR 1965 SC 722)

 In this case, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) placed some

restrictions on the entry of gold into India, thus superseding
an earlier notification.
 The accused reached Mumbai from Manila, where gold bars
were recovered from his jacket.
 The accused pleaded that he had no Mens Rea and that he
had no knowledge of the RBI notification.
 After considering the object and subject matter of statute, the
Court held that there was no scope for the invocation of the
doctrine of mens rea in this particular case.
R. S. Joshi, S.T.O. Gujarat Etc. ... vs Ajit Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad &
Anr. (1977 AIR 2279)

 The classical view that `no Mens Rea, no crime’ has long ago
been eroded and several laws in India and abroad, especially
regarding economic crimes and departmental penalties, have
created severe punishments even where the offences have been
defined to exclude Mens Rea.
 The respondents, who were registered dealers, tax collected from
various customers amounts qua sales tax prohibited by s. 46 of
the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (as applicable to the State of
Gujarat)
 Acting on the prohibition plus penalty contained in s. 46 read with
s. 37(1) of the Act the Sales Tax officers imposed penalties and
forfeited the sums collected in contravention of s. 46.
 HELD : The punitive impost in s. 37(1)(a) is legitimate and valid.
Crimes of Strict Liability
 There is a presumption that the doctrine of mens rea applies
to all statutory crime, but the presumption is liable to be
displaced by the following ways:
i. By the express provision of law (words of the statue creating
the offence)
ii. By necessary implication (by the subject matter with which it
deals)
 The Supreme Court on various occasions has reiterated that
unless a statue either clearly or by necessary implication
rules out mens rea as a constituent element of crime, person
should not be held guilty for an offence, if he does not have a
guilty mind
 exceptional cases: offences of strict liability or absolute liability

 Thus, in exceptional cases a person may be convicted of

an offence independently of any wrongful intent or
culpable negligence.
 Such offences are termed as offences of strict liability or
absolute liability. In such a case it is no defence to an
accused that he honestly believed on reasonable
grounds and in good faith in the existence of facts which
would have rendered his conduct innocent.
 Strict Liability
 The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of Rylands
v Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330. In the year 1868, the
principle of strict liability stated that any person who keeps
hazardous substances on his premises will be held
responsible if such substances escape the premises and
causes any damage.
 Going into the facts of the case, F had a mill on his land, and
to power the mill, F built a reservoir on his land. Due to some
accident, the water from the reservoir flooded the coal
mines owned by R. Subsequently, R filed a suit against F.
 The Court held that the defendant built the reservoir at his
risk, and in course of it, if any accident happens then the
defendant will be liable for the accident and escape of the
material.
 Strict Liability
 Going by the principle laid in this case, it can be said that if a
person brings on his land and keeps some dangerous thing, and
such a thing is likely to cause some damage if it escapes then
such person will be answerable for the damaged caused.
 The person from whose property such substance escaped will be
held accountable even when he hasn’t been negligent in keeping
the substance in his premises.
 The liability is imposed on him not because there is any
negligence on his part, but the substance kept on his premises is
hazardous and dangerous.
 Based on this judicial pronouncement, the concept of strict
liability came into being.
 There are some essential conditions which should be fulfilled to
categorize a liability under the head of strict liability.
3 condition to strict liability

 These three condition needs to be satisfied

simultaneously to constitute a strict liability:
 Dangerous Substances
 Escape
 Non-natural Use
Essentials of Strict Liability
 Dangerous Substances: The defendant will be held strictly liable only if a
“dangerous” substances escapes from his premises.
 For the purpose of imposing strict liability, a dangerous substance can be
defined as any substance which will cause some mischief or harm if it
escapes. Things like explosives, toxic gasses, water, electricity, etc. can be
termed as dangerous things.
 Escape: One more essential condition to make the defendant strictly liable is
that the material should escape from the premises and shouldn’t be within
the reach of the defendant after its escape.
 For instance, the defendant has some poisonous plant on his property.
Leaves from the plant enter the property of the plaintiff and is eaten by his
cattle, who as a result die. The defendant will be liable for the loss. But on the
other hand, if the cattle belonging to the plaintiff enter the premises of the
defendant and eats the poisonous leaves and die, the defendant would not
be liable. In the judicial pronouncement of Reads v. Lyons & Co. [1947] AC
156 House of Lords; it was held that if there is no escape, the defendant
cannot be held liable.
Essentials of Strict Liability
 Non-natural Use: To constitute a strict liability, there should be a non-natural
use of the land. In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, the water collected in the
reservoir was considered to be a non-natural use of the land. Storage of
water for domestic use is considered to be natural use. But storing water for
the purpose of energizing a mill was considered non-natural by the Court.
 When the term “non-natural” is to be considered, it should be kept in mind
that there must be some special use which increases the danger to others.
Supply of cooking gas through the pipeline, electric wiring in a house, etc. is
considered to be the natural use of land.
 For instance, if the defendant lights up a fire in his fireplace and a spark
escapes and causes a fire, the defendant will not be held liable as it was a
natural use of the land.
 These three condition needs to be satisfied simultaneously to constitute a
strict liability.
Exception to the Rule of Strict Liability
 There are certain exceptions to the rule of strict liability, which are-
 Plaintiff’s Fault: If the plaintiff is at fault and any damage is
caused, the defendant wouldn’t be held liable, as the plaintiff
himself came in contact with the dangerous thing.
 In the judicial pronouncement of Ponting v Noakes (1849) 2 QB
281,the plaintiff’s horse died after it entered the property of the
defendant and ate some poisonous leaves. The Court held that it
was a wrongful intrusion, and the defendant was not to be held
strictly liable for such loss.
 Act of God: The phrase “act of God” can be defined as an event
which is beyond the control of any human agency. Such acts
happen exclusively due to natural reasons and cannot be
prevented even while exercising caution and foresight. The
defendant wouldn’t be liable for the loss if the dangerous
substance escaped because of some unforeseen and natural
event which couldn’t have been controlled in any manner.
Exception to the Rule of Strict Liability
 Act of the Third Party: The rule also doesn’t apply when the
damage is caused due to the act of a third party. The third party
means that the person is neither the servant of the defendant, nor
the defendant has any contract with them or control over their
work. But where the acts of the third party can be foreseen, the
defendant must take due care. Otherwise, he will be held
responsible.
 For instance, in the case of Box v Jubb, LR 4 EX Div 76 where the
reservoir of the defendant overflowed because a third party
emptied his drain through the defendant’s reservoir, the Court
held that the defendant wouldn’t be liable.
 Consent of the Plaintiff: This exception follows the principle
of violenti non fit injuria. For instance, if A and B are neighbors,
and they share the same water source which is situated on the
land of A, and if the water escapes and causes damage to B, he
can’t claim damages, as A wouldn’t be liable for the damage.
 EXCEPTIONS TO MENS REA:
 There are many exceptional cases where mens rea is not required in criminal law.
Some of them are as follows:
 a. Where a statute imposes liability, the presence of absence of a guilty mind is
irrelevant. Many laws passed in the interest of public safety and social welfare
imposes absolute liability. This is so in matters concerning public health, food,
drugs, etc. There is absolute liability (mens rea is not essential) in the licensing of
shops, hotels, restaurants and chemists establishments. The same is true of cases
under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Arms Act.
 b. Where it is difficult to prove mens rea and penalties are petty fines. In such petty
cases, speedy disposal of cases is necessary and the proving of mens rea is not
easy. An accused may be fined even without any proof of mens rea.
 c. In the interest of public safety, strict liability is imposed and whether a person
causes public nuisance with a guilty mind or without guilty mind, he is punished.
 If a person violates a law even without the knowledge of the existence of the law, it
can still be said that he has committed an act which is prohibited by law. In such
cases, the fact that he was not aware of the law and hence did not intend to violate
it is no defense and he would be liable as if he was aware of the law. This follows
from the maxim 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'.
Absolute Liability
 The rule of absolute liability, in simple words, can be defined
as the rule of strict liability minus the exceptions.
 In India, the rule of absolute liability evolved in the case of MC
Mehta v Union of India. A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086: 1987 ACJ 386
 This is one of the most landmark judgment which relates to
the concept of absolute liability.
 The facts of the case are that some oleum gas leaked in a
particular area in Delhi from industry. Due to the leakage,
many people were affected.
 The Apex Court then evolved the rule of absolute liability on
the rule of strict liability and stated that the defendant would
be liable for the damage caused without considering the
exceptions to the strict liability rule.
 Absolute Liability
 According to the rule of absolute liability, if any person is
engaged in an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity, and
if any harm is caused to any person due to such activity which
occurred during carrying out such inherently dangerous and
hazardous activity, then the person who is carrying out such
activity will be held absolutely liable. The exception to the
strict liability rule also wouldn’t be considered.
 The rule laid down in the case of MC Mehta v UOI was also
followed by the Supreme Court while deciding the case of
Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. To ensure that victims of such
accidents get quick relief through insurance, the Indian
Legislature passed the Public Liability Insurance Act in the
year 1991.
Cases to which the doctrine of mensreadoesn't not apply

 Cases to which the doctrine of mens rea doesn't not applies

may be placed under four categories:
i. Statutory offences of abduction, kidnapping, rape and offences
against the state and army.
ii. Cases of public nuisance, libel and contempt of court
(discussed later)
iii. Offences created by statues that are regulatory in nature, in
which although the proceedings are criminal, it is really a mode
of enforcing a civil right, for example, cases of violation of
municipal laws, town planning laws, and traffic regulations,
etc.
iv. Public welfare offences which include socio-economic offences
relating to food, drugs, weight and measures, hoarding and
black marketing, licensing, revenue, environmental pollution
and custom offences, etc. These offences are basically quasi
criminal in nature.
Absolute Liability
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086
 Allowing the petition for closure of the Shriram Fertiliser
Industries plant, court said:
 An enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently
dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the
health and safety of the persons working in the factory and
residing in the surrounding areas owes absolute and non
delegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm
results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently
dangerous nature of activity it has undertaken.
 The enterprise must conduct and follow the highest standards
of safety and if any harm results on account of such activity, the
enterprise must be absolutely held liable to compensate for
such harm and the enterprise cannot take the excuse that it
had taken all reasonable care and harm occurred without any
negligence on its part
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086

 The Supreme Court authoritatively ruled that the operation of

common law doctrine of strict liability enunciated in 1868 in
Ryland v. Fletcher has limited application in India.
 As regards the measure of damages the court said that the
damages by way of compensation must have deterrent effect
and must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the
enterprise.
 The judgment is not confined only to enterprises which are
engaged in industry for profit; it extends to all enterprises
which are engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous
activities such as the state enterprises, scientific, research
institutions, under or outside the auspices of state, etc.
No mens rea needed in public welfare offences

 Mens rea as a universally accepted principle is essential

element or ingredient of crime, though it is not without its
limitations.
 In the contemporary times, an entire range of social or
public welfare litigations have been conceived in a manner
that no mens rea is required for imposing criminal liability
because the law makes the mere omission or commission
of acts punishable.
 In other words, no mens rea is required for imposing
liability in public welfare offences.
 No mensreaneeded in public welfare offences

 The state in order to ensure that the public at large is not put to risk
or cheated in the profit making ventures of the industries, has
enacted certain Acts and Courts have held that mens rea is not
essential for offences under Public Welfare Legislations.
 For Example : Courts have taken similar view in respect of the
following Acts:
i. Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947(now called Foreign Exchange
Management Act, 1999) designed to safeguard and conserve the
foreign exchange is essential to safeguard the economy.
ii. The protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 enacted to
protect the rights of dalits or the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes.
iii. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which recognizes the inherent
power of courts to punish persons who obstruct or interfere with the
administration of justice.
Vicarious Liability in Criminal Law
 General Rule: The principle of vicarious liability plays an important
role in law of torts and civil law; generally should not be extended
to criminal law because under criminal law the underlying
principle is that a man should only be punished for his misdeeds
and not others.
 However; the English law has recognized two exceptions to this
rule of non-liability:
i. A master is vicariously liable for libel published by his servant.
However, it is open to a master proprietor to show in defense that
the libel was published without his authority and with no lack of
care on his part.
ii. A master is vicariously responsible for a public nuisance
committed by his servant.
It is within the power of the legislature to make certain illegal acts or
omissions penal and fix an absolute liability upon the person, if a
breach of certain enactment is made.
 Vicarious Liability in Criminal Law
 Acts or defaults of a servant or agent in the ordinary course
of his employment makes the master or employee liable,
once the absolute/strict liability is fixed, then the
particular intent or state of mind is not the essence of
offence; although he was not aware of acts or defaults and
might have been against his orders.
 However, such liability must be specifically imposed by the
terms of the statue or at least the fact of implied liability
must be sufficiently evident from the provisions of the
statue.
 No person can be vicariously liable if a provision to this
effect does not exist in the statue concerned.
 In fact, strict liability clauses in statues might result in the
agents being made liable for the act of the master.
Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR
1961 SC 631
 In Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR
1961 SC 631, the appellant who was an
employee, was convicted under the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act 1954 for the act of
mastering in selling adulterated oil.
Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1961
SC 631
 The appellant was an employee of one Thakur Das, a
vendor of edible oils. He was found to have sold
adulterated mustard oil and he and Thakur Das were
prosecuted for an offence under S. 7 r/w S. 16
of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.
 Both were found guilty; Thakur Das was sentenced to pay
a fine of Rs. 200, but in view of a previous conviction the
appellant was sentenced to one year's rigorous
imprisonment and RS. 2,000 fine, the minimum
prescribed by S. 16.
Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1961 SC
631

 The appellant contended that a servant who sold food on

behalf of his employer was not liable unless it was known
that he had done so with the knowledge that the food was
adulterated.
SarjooPrasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1961 AIR 631

 SC Held (matter came to SC u/A 136 by way of SLP)

that S. 7 of the Act enjoins everyone, whether an
employer or a servant, not to sell adulterated food, and
anyone who contravenes this provision is punishable
under S. 16 without proof of mens rea.
 Mens rea not Essential in five offences :

It is not essential in respect of following five offences:

(i) Waging war (s.121)
(ii) Sedition (s.124A)
(iii) Kidnapping and abduction (s. 360,361)
(iv) Counterfeiting coins (s.232)
(v) Rape (s.375)
 actus reus

Guilty Conduct (Actus Reus)

 What is this actus reus? :
 Merely possessing a guilty mind and thinking of committing
a crime is not enough. The accused person must also act on
that intention and do something in its furtherance.
 Actus reus basically refers to an act or omission which leads
to the completion of an offence.
 Both mens rea, as well as actus reus, together are important
to create an offence.
 Actus Reus is the physical aspect of a crime
 Actus reus can be a positive act, such as stabbing a person
to cause his death. It can also be negative act like an
omission (failure) to perform an action.
 3. Actus Reus
 Actus reus (prohibited act) - the guilty act or guilty omission.
 An act is doing something that you shouldn’t and an
omission is not doing something that you should have.
 The omission of an act can also constitute the basis for
criminal liability.
 Actus reus, sometimes called the external element of a
crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when
proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the
mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability.
 All crimes require actus-reus. That is, a criminal act or an
unlawful omission of an act must have occurred.
 A person cannot be punished for thinking criminal thoughts.
 Mere Words as Actus Reus
 Unlike thoughts, words can be considered acts in criminal
law.
 For example, threats 503 IPC, perjury-191 IPC, conspiracy
120A IPC etc. are offenses in which words can constitute the
element of actus reus.
 It has been defined as such result of human conduct as the
law seeks to prevent.
 It may be positive illegal act or negative (illegal omission).
Actus Reus
 It is a physical result of human conduct. When criminal
policy regards such a conduct as sufficiently harmful it is
prohibited and the criminal policy provides a sanction or
penalty for its commission.
 Such human conduct may consist of acts of commission as
well as acts of omission.
 Section 32 of IPC lays down: Words referring to acts include
illegal omissions-In every part of this Code, except where a
contrary intention appears from the context, words which
refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions.
 word “illegal”
 As regards acts of omission which make a man criminally
responsible, the rule is that no one would be held liable for the
lawful consequences of his omission unless it is proved that he
was under a legal obligation to act.
 In other words, some duty should have been imposed upon him
by law, which he has omitted to discharge.
 Under IPC, Section 43 lays down that the word “illegal” is
applicable to everything which is an offence or which is
prohibited by law, or which furnishes a ground for a civil action;
and a person is said to be “legally bound to do whatever it is
illegal in him to omit.”
 Therefore, an illegal omission would apply to omissions of
everything which he is legally bound to do.
requirements of actus reus varies

 Actus Reus includes all external circumstances and

consequences specified in the rule of law as constituting
the forbidden situation.
 The requirement of actus reus with reference to place,
time, person, consent, the state of mind, possession or
preparation etc. varies depending on the definition of the
crime.
requirements of actus reus varies
 The requirements of actus reus varies depending on the definition
of the crime. Actus reus may be with reference to the following:
i. Place: In the offence of criminal trespass, house breaking or in the
aggravated forms thereof, the actus reus is in respect of place
(sections 441-462 IPC)
ii. Time: In the offences of lurking house trespass or house breaking
by night in order to commit an offence or after preparation for
hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, etc. (Sections 456-458 IPC),
the actus reus is in respect of both place and time.
iii.Person: In offences of kidnapping and abduction, procuring of a
minor girl, etc., the actus reus is in respect of the person (sections
359-374 IPC).
requirements of actus reus varies
iv. Consent: In the offence of rape, consent is the actus
reus.
v. State of Mind of the Victim: In offences relating to religion
(sections 295-298 IPC), or where rape is committed
when consent has been obtained by putting the victim in
fear of death or of hurt (section 375 IPC), the actus reus
is with reference to the state of mind of the victim.
vi. Possession: Possession of stolen property constitutes
the actus reus in certain offences (section 410-412 IPC).
vii. Preparation: Section 399 of IPC makes preparation to
commit dacoity an offence; therefore, the preparation
itself constitutes actus reus.
 Concurrence
 The prosecution cannot secure a conviction by only proving
mens rea or actus reus.
 The defendant must have both mens rea and actus reus
together – a guilty mind and the guilty act. Concurrence of the
two must be present.
 Typically, the prosecution needs proof that the two occurred
together, at the same time, to culminate in the crime in
question.
 The guilty mind must coexist with or at least precede the guilty
act.
 It does not necessarily matter whether mens rea was present up
to the actus reus (such as premeditated crimes)
 Mens rea must have motivated the conduct that led to the
actus reus.
 Excetions to the actus reus
 Then again, in some cases a crime is constituted,
although the actus reus has not consummated and no
injury has resulted to any person.

 Such cases are known as inchoate crimes, like attempt,

abetment or conspiracy.
Injury
4. Injury to another person(human being)or the society at large

 The fourth requirement of a crime is injury to another

person or to the society at large.
 In ordinary language 'injury' means a wound or hurt to the
human body.
 But section 44 has defined injury in a much wider sense to
include not only bodily harm, but also harm to one's mind,
reputation or property.
4. Injury to another person(human being)or the society at large

 The illegality of the harm is the gist of the offence.

 Thus, if the injury is not illegal, it is not injury within the
meaning of this section because it must imply an illegal
act or omission.
4. Injury to another person(human being)or the society at
large

 An injury may be caused to body as in case of hurt/gr.

hurt
 injury, to the property as in the case of mischief or theft
 it may be caused to reputation as in case of defamation
 it may also be caused to mind as in case of domestic
violence
No injury to any specific person yet the person may be held liable

 Sometimes, by a harmful conduct no injury is caused to

another specific human being, yet the act may be held
liable as a crime, because in such a case harm is caused
to the society at large.
 All the public offences, especially offences against the
state, e.g. waging war against country, sedition, etc. are
instances of such harms.
 They are treated to be very grave offences and punished
very severely also.
Sometimes threat of Injury is also punishable

 In Indian Penal Code there are provisions under which

the threat of Injury is punishable. They are as follows:
 Section 189- Threat of an injury to a public servant
 Section 190 - Threat of an injury to induce a person to
refrain from applying for protection to a public servant
 Section 385- Putting a fear of injury on a person in
order to commit extortion
 Conclusion
 Thus, from the above it can be seen that there are four
elements that are required to constitute a crime.
 However, there are certain exceptions to the above rules as
a crime can be committed even without a guilty mind.
 In certain cases there is no existence physical element i.e.
actus reus but they are still crimes.
 Also, there are cases where no injury has been caused but
still they are crimes.
 Conclusion
 There are four essential elements that go to constitute a crime.
 First, the wrongdoer who must be a human being/person and must
have the capacity to commit a crime, so that he may be a fit subject
for the infliction of an appropriate punishment.
 Secondly, there should be an evil intent or mens rea on the part of
such human being. This is also known as the subjective element of a
crime.
 Thirdly, there should be an actus reus, i.e. an act committed or
omitted in furtherance of such evil intent or mens rea. This may be
called the objective element of a crime.
 Lastly, as a result of the conduct of the human being acting with an
evil mind, an injury should have been caused to another human
being or to the society at large. Such an injury should have been
caused to any other person in body, mind, reputation or property.
 If all these elements are present, generally (exceptions are there),
we would say that a crime has been constituted.
 Conclusion
 However, in some cases we find that a crime is
constituted, although there is no mens rea at all. These
are known as cases of strict /absolute/vicarious
liability.
 Then again, in some cases a crime is constituted,
although the actus reus has not consummated and no
injury has resulted to any person. Such cases are known
as inchoate crimes, like attempt, abetment or
conspiracy.
inprotected.com