Introduction and Elements

of Crime

BY: HIFAJATALI SAYYED

Introduction to Criminal Law
Personal safety, particularly security of life, liberty and
property is of utmost importance .
Maintenance of peace and order is essential in any
society.
A human conduct that is believed to be harmful to the
social interest is labeled as crime.
Crime changes from age to age and differ from state to
state.
Criminal law and Morality
Criminal law is narrower than morality.

No one can be punished for ingratitude or hard-heartedness.

Law does not punish a rich person for not offering some rice
to the starving person but it punishes a starving person who
steals rice from rich person.
Telling a lie or breaching a promise is morally wrong but law
does not punish all lies or breaches; the breach of promise for
dinner is not punishable by law.
 Objectives of Criminal law
To maintain law and order in the society.
To punish the criminal.

To prevent the occurrence of crime.

To rehabilitate the criminal.
To compensate the victim.

To deter the offender from committing any criminal

act in future.
 Theories of Punishment

1. Retributive theory:
The victim was allowed to take revenge. The principle of ‘an eye
for an eye and tooth for a tooth,’ is adopted by this theory. The
offender should receive as much pain and suffering inflicted by
him on the victim to satisfy the angry sentiments of victim and
his family.
Criticism: It is barbaric and inhuman. If taking revenge is
permitted than there will be no survival of human being.
 Theories of Punishment
2. Deterrent Theory:
According to this theory, object of punishment is not only to prevent
the wrongdoer from doing the crime for the second time, but also to
make him an example for other persons who have criminal
tendencies. Severe punishment is given to the offender which will
create fear in the mind of other people.

Criticism: Quantum of punishment not equal to gravity of offence.

Harden criminal is not afraid of punishment.

Excessive punishment tends to create harden criminals

 Theories of Punishment
3. Preventive Theory:
In this theory punishment is awarded with a view to prevent the
offender from repeating the offence in future. Imprisonment is
the most effective mode of preventing the offences by the
offender. . The preventive theory seeks to prevent the repetition
of crime by “incapacitating” the offenders. Instances of
preventive theory is preventive detention , expulsion.

Criticism: After suffering punishment, criminal becomes

shameless and fearless. So, he becomes professional and habitual
criminal.
 Theories of Punishment
4. Reformative Theory:
It condemns all kinds of punishment. Emphasis of this theory is
rehabilitation of offender. According to this theory, offenders are
patients and they need treatment rather than punishment. The
criminal must be given some vocational training in art, craft or
industry in jail so that he may be able to lead a good life and become
respectable citizen of society after his release.
Criticism: If prison will be very comfortable, it will become dwelling
house for poor and unemployed. This Reformative Theory of
Punishment cannot be applied to hardcore or repeated criminals.
 Theories of Punishment
5. Expiatory Theory:
Expiation means the act of expiating; reparation; amends;
compensation; atonement. According to this theory the offender
expiates or show remorse for his wrong doing and pays
compensation to the victim or his family members. Generally the
victim is not taken into consideration while awarding punishment.
So, this theory concentrates on compensating the victim.
Criticism: If the compensation is allowed to be paid in rapes, the
number of rapists will be increased. The rich people will be
habituated to rape the poor women, and pay the compensation.
They can escape imprisonment by paying money. 
 Criminal Liability
Definitions of Crime:
According to Blackstone crime is defined, “As an act
committed or omitted in violation of Public Law forbidding
or commanding it".
According to Austin, “Crime is a wrong which is pursued
by the sovereign or his subordinate.”
According to Sellin, “Crime is any form of conduct which is
forbidden by law under pain of some punishment.”
 Criminal Liability
Definition of Crime:
According to Tappan Paul, “An intentional act or
omission in violation of criminal law committed without
any defence and penalized by law.”
According to Kenny, “Crimes are wrongs whose
sanction is punitive, and is in no way remissible by any
private person, but is remissible by the crown alone, if
remissible at all.”
 Elements of Crime
The fundamental principle of criminal liability is that
there must be a wrongful act (actus reus), combined
with wrongful intention. This principle is embodied in
the maxim, “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit
rea”. It means that an act itself is not a crime unless
joined with guilty mind.
 Elements of Crime
1. Human Being: : It should be an act which is done by a
human being.
2. Voluntarily: . There is another important maxim of
criminal law, “Actus me invito factus non est mens
actus”, which means that an act done by me against my
will is not my act.
3. Mens Rea (Guilty intention): Mens rea is a technical
term which means some blameworthy mental condition.
 Elements of Crime
Mens Rea: Every conscious act of a person is preceded
by desire to do something. Such desire or intention to
do the act is known as mens rea. There is no ‘generic’
type of mens rea which may be applicable in all
circumstances. IPC prescribes specific men rea for each
type of offence.
 Components of Mens Rea
i. Intention: The desire to do an act is called as
intention. A person acts intentionally if he acts with a
purpose that his action causes certain result.

a. Direct Intention: A person has direct intent when

they intend a particular consequence of their act.

b.Oblique Intention: Oblique intent is said to exist

when the person while doing act to cause a desired
result, knows that the consequences of his action will
also bring about another result.
 Components of Mens Rea
Oblique Intention:
DPP v. Smith [1961] AC (Appeal Case) 290 HL,
A policeman tried to stop the defendant from driving off with
stolen goods by jumping on to the bonnet of the car. The defendant
drove off at speed and zigzagged in order to get the police officer off
the car, and in that process policeman was knocked onto the path
of an oncoming car and killed.
The defendant argued- did not intend to harm the policeman.
Jury convicted the accused for murder.
The House of Lords affirmed the decision of jury.
 Components of Mens Rea
ii. Knowledge:
To know a thing means mental cognition of it i.e.,
having immediate personal knowledge.
Knowledge refers to the bare state of conscious
awareness of certain facts in which human mind might
itself remain inactive.
In many cases intention and knowledge merge into
each other and mean the same thing, more or less, the
intention can be presumed from the knowledge.
 Components of Mens Rea
iii. Recklessness :
Here accused must have knowledge of likelihood of
existence of circumstances or occurrence of
consequences, but it falls short of belief in the certainty
of these matters.
Eg: Driving at a high speed through crowded street.
iv. Negligence: Negligence is used to denote want of
care and precaution, which a reasonable man would
have taken under particular circumstances of the case.
 Components of Mens Rea
Motive:
It is the ultimate object which is intended to achieve.
A motive is something which prompts a person to
form an opinion or intention to do certain act.
The relevant factor in deciding the guilt of the
offender is his intention behind doing that act and not
the motive. The motive in committing a particular act
may be good.
 Cases on Mens Rea
R. vs. Tolson (1889 23 QBD 168)
The appellant married in Sept 1880. In Dec 1881 her husband
went missing. She was told that he had been on a ship that was
lost at sea. Six years later, believing her husband to be dead, she
married another. 11 months later her husband turned up. She
was charged with the offence of bigamy.

Held: She was afforded the defence of mistake as it was

reasonable in the circumstances to believe that her husband was
dead.
 Cases on Mens Rea
R v Prince (1875 LR 2 CCR 154)
Accused was convicted for taking an unmarried girl under the
age of 16 out of the possession of her father without the father’s
consent.  The girl, was in fact 14 years old, however she had told
accused that she was 18, and accused reasonably believed it. The
appellant appealed against his conviction.
Held: The court held that where a statute is silent as to the mens
rea for an offence, the court is not bound to read a mens rea
requirement into the statute. The offence was one of strict
liability.
 Elements of Crime
4. Actus Reus:
Actus Reus is the physical aspect of a crime. The accused needs to have
done something or omitted to do something, resulting in injury.
The act must be proximate cause of the effect.
The causation can also be without any physical act. Eg: if the victim
asks his way on a dark night and the accused with the intention of
causing his death, directs him to a path that he knows will bring him to
a cliff edge, and the victim suffers a fatal fall, this is clearly murder,
though the accused had done nothing more than saying something.
 4. Actus Reus:

R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279

The accused was in a relationship with a girl. She ended up the

relationship because of the violent behaviour of accused. The
accused got angry and kept her hostage. Armed police followed him.
He used the girl as a shield as he came out of the flat and walked
along the balcony. The police saw a person walking towards them
but could not see who it was. The appellant fired shots at the police
and the police returned fire. The police shot the girl who died.
Held: The firing at the police officers caused them to fire back. In
firing back, the police officers were acting in self -defence. His using
the girl as a shield caused her death.
Concurrence of Actus reus and
Mens rea
The criminal liability not only requires the proof of the
presence of both actus reus and mens rea, but also that
there must be coincidence or concurrence of the mens
rea with the act which causes the actus reus.
In relation to result crimes such as homicide, where the
death itself may involve a process, a problem arises
when there are several acts committed by the defendant
which eventually lead to the death of the victim.
Concurrence of Actus reus and
Mens rea
Palani Goundan v. Emperor, Crim. Appeal No. 33 of 1919
Accused struck his wife a blow on her head with a ploughshare
which, though not shown to be a blow likely to cause death, did
in fact render her unconscious and, believing her to be dead, in
order to lay the foundation of a false defence of suicide by
hanging, the accused hanged her on a beam by a rope and
thereby caused her death by strangulation;
Held by the Full Bench, that the accused was not guilty of either
murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He can
be convicted of assault and for false evidence.
Thank you