Define the term 'Crime'.

Elaborate the applicability of Mens Rea in the provisions of

Indian Penal Code with special reference to the maxim Actus non Facit Reum Nisi Mens
Sit Rea.

The Latin phrase ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’, which can be roughly translated
as “an act does not make a person guilty unless their mind is also guilty,” represents a
fundamental principle in criminal law.

Essentially, this means that establishing criminal responsibility requires not only
demonstrating the physical act (actus reus) and the mental state (mens rea) but also the
alignment or simultaneity of the mental state with the conduct that leads to the physical
act.

Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea means “An act does not make a person guilty
unless there is a guilty mind.”

It highlights that both the physical act and the corresponding guilty intention are
necessary to establish criminal liability. This principle safeguards individuals from being
unjustly convicted for acts committed without criminal intent.

Meaning of Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea

Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea is a legal maxim that signifies “An act does not
make anyone guilty unless there is a criminal intent or guilty mind.”

This maxim is better understood in conjunction with actus reus and mens rea. If the
physical act (actus reus) is not accompanied by the mental state (mens rea), it would not
constitute a crime in itself.

In other words, if a person’s wrongful act is not a result of an intention to commit a

crime, that act would not be considered criminal. Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 reflects the essence of this maxim. To establish the guilt of the accused, it must be
demonstrated that the unlawful act was carried out with the accused’s intention to
commit that act.

Therefore, it can be concluded that the guilty mind, which is the intention of the accused
to commit the crime, is crucial in proving the accused’s guilt in a specific crime.

Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea Example

One example that illustrates Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea is a case where a
person accidentally bumps into someone on the street without any intent to harm or
cause injury.
Although the physical act of bumping into someone has occurred (actus reus), there is no
guilty mind or intention (mens rea) behind it. In this case, the absence of mens rea would
prevent the act from constituting a crime.

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea under IPC

The principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea has been incorporated into the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 in two primary ways.

Firstly, by explicitly incorporating the necessary mental state (mens rea) within the
definition of an offence.

Secondly, through the inclusion of ‘General Exceptions’ outlined in Chapter 5 of the

Code.

These exceptions, such as mistake of fact, accident, infancy, and insanity, negate the
presence of mens rea in certain circumstances.

Mens Rea

Mens Rea, along with the Latin maxim ‘Actus Reus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea,’
was introduced in the seventeenth century and is commonly used in reference to
criminal acts. Mens Rea pertains to the mental element of a crime, placing the burden on
the prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. While the
concept of mens rea has evolved over time, its essence remains timeless.

In the case of Regina v. Falkner, the defendant unintentionally set fire to a cargo ship
while attempting to steal rum from a cask. The defendant was charged and found guilty
of both theft and arson. However, upon appeal, Lord Fitzgerald emphasized the
requirement of mens rea, stating that the defendant should have intended to engage in a
criminal act that would reasonably lead to the resulting harm.

It is important to note that each offence carries a distinct mens rea requirement. There is
no “one mens rea for all” principle. Mens rea should not be confused with motive, as
they are not interchangeable. Motive is the driving force behind the accused’s intention
and precedes it, but it should not be equated with the intention to commit the crime.

Merely having a strong motive to harm someone does not automatically give rise to a
crime. Therefore, it is crucial in criminal law to differentiate between the two and not
unjustly accuse someone based solely on motive. Understanding this subtle yet
significant difference is essential in the study of criminal law.

Meaning of Actus Reus

Actus reus encompasses the actions or inactions that form the physical components of a
crime, as mandated by the law. In certain situations where a person is obligated to take
action but fails to do so, actus reus can also pertain to omissions. For an action to
constitute a crime, it must either be prohibited or required by law.

In the case of R v. Dytham, a police officer who was on duty witnessed a person being
fatally kicked but failed to intervene. The officer was convicted of the common law
offence of misconduct in a public office due to his negligence in protecting or
apprehending the victim.

Similarly, in Davey v. Lee, the court established that the actus reus necessary for an
attempted crime would be fulfilled if the defendant takes a step towards committing a
specific crime that is directly linked to it and cannot reasonably be seen as having any
other purpose. Actus reus primarily focuses on the actual physical act rather than the
mental state of the perpetrator. It is associated with human behaviour and conduct.

Exceptions of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

In certain circumstances, the law can establish offences based solely on the physical act,
disregarding the “state of mind” of the person committing the crime. These situations are
also subject to punishment and are considered exceptions to the general principle of
actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. In simpler terms, a crime in which mens rea is not
a necessary requirement is an exception to this rule.

In the case of Ranjit D. Udeshi v. the State of Maharashtra (1964), the Supreme Court of
India stated, “We do not accept the notion that the prosecution must establish that the
person who sells or holds for sale any obscene object knows that it is obscene before he
can be declared guilty.”

Therefore, in this context, mens rea is deemed less significant compared to the
committed act. If someone is found in possession of obscene material, they can be
prosecuted under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, without the necessity of
proving their purpose or awareness of the obscenity.

Case Laws For Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea

In the case of R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, the Supreme Court quoted a
relevant excerpt from the book, which underscored the importance of the Latin maxim
“Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea” in understanding the two components of every
crime: the physical element (actus reus) and the mental element (mens rea).
There have been instances where the requirement of “intention to commit the crime”
has been questioned. In the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, it was noted that the
general conditions of penal liabilities in criminal actions are reflected in the maxim “actus
non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.”

However, the court acknowledged that there are exceptions to this maxim. It stated that
the legislature may find it necessary, in certain situations and circumstances, to eliminate
the element of mens rea to prevent the commission of certain acts. Nevertheless, unless
explicitly or implicitly excluded by a statute, mens rea must be considered along with the
provisions of the law.

The Supreme Court has highlighted the significance of Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens
Sit Rea in relation to Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). In the case of
Siddhapal Kamala Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, the court opined that Section 84
embodies the fundamental maxim of criminal law.

A similar observation was made in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, where the
court emphasized that both intention and action are integral to the commission of a
crime, as stated in actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The court further emphasized
that individuals of sound mind are expected to possess a certain level of reasoning ability
and are accountable for their actions unless proven otherwise. Individuals with unsound
minds or mental disorders lack this basic norm of human behaviour.

In Brend v. Wood, Lord Goddard, C.J. highlighted the importance of considering mens
rea as a constituent part of a crime for the protection of an individual’s liberty. The court
stated that unless a statute clearly or implicitly eliminates mens rea as a requirement, a
person should not be found guilty of a criminal offence without possessing a guilty mind.

There are cases where the explicit demonstration of mens rea by the accused in the
commission of a crime has been disregarded. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Rama and
Sons, General Merchant, Ballia, the Allahabad High Court mentioned that mens rea was
adopted from English Criminal Law when it was not codified.

The court highlighted the improvements in modern statutes, which incorporate words
such as “voluntarily,” “intentionally,” “negligently,” “knowingly,” “fraudulently,”
“dishonestly,” “rashly,” “omits,” “without lawful authority,” etc., in various sections of
the IPC to depict the intent aspect of the crime.

According to the court, the usage of such words and other terms related to the conduct
of the person helps establish the offence, thereby leaving minimal scope for further
demonstrating the guilty intention or mens rea of the accused.
Conclusion

Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea is a fundamental principle in criminal law that
states “An act does not make a person guilty unless there is a guilty mind.” It emphasizes
that both the physical act (actus reus) and the corresponding guilty intention (mens rea)
are necessary to establish criminal liability.

This principle serves to protect individuals from being unjustly convicted for acts
committed without criminal intent. By requiring proof of both actus reus and mens rea,
the legal system ensures a fair and just determination of guilt in criminal prosecutions.