Elements of Crime

Actus reus
Mens rea
Actus reus
• The whole definition of crime with the exception of the mental element.
• Actus reus varies depending on the definition of a crime- it may be with reference to
place, fact, time, person, consent, the state of mind of the victim, possession or mere
preparation.
• Sections- 441 (Criminal Trespass), 442 (House trespass), 443 (Lurking house trespass)
• Sections- 446 (House- breaking at night), 457, 458
• Sections 359 (kidnapping), 363A- (kidnapping for begging)
• Sections 361, 375
• Sections 295 (injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion)
• Sections 410
• Sections 122, 126
Causation of Crime
• There will lot of factors that often result in a crime. A factor is said to
have caused a particular event, if without that factor the event would
not have happened.
• A rational relationship between the one’s conduct and the prohibited
result.
• Establishing such result may be both simple and complex- A shoots B
and B dies. A with an intention to kill B, diverts B to dangerous path at
night (path leading to cliff edge) B suffers fatal fall.
Causation and Negligence
• Shiv Dev Singh v. State (1995)- Bus No. DLP 4634 (Subzimandi Ghanta
Ghar to Shastri Nagar)- 28-7-1991. Shital Preshad was standing on
foot- board of the bus- 9:15 AM on reaching Sandra Kalan crossing-
accused took a sharp turn- shital fell down- he was taken to the
hospital- but died soon thereafter. Whether 304A IPC will stand?
• Act- rash/ negligent driving- result- death of a passenger- for Shiv to
be liable under 304A IPC- it is to be established that the death is the
direct result of rash/negligent driving of the accused.
• Martin @ Jinu Sebastian v. State of Kerala (2022) (Kerala HC),
Nanjundappa v. State of Karnataka (2022, SC)
Principle involved
• Prasad Pradhan v. The State of Chhattisgarh (2023, SC)
• The appellants and the deceased were cousins- on 28.2.2012- deceased
was getting his land levelled through a JCB. Appellants reached the
place and attacked the deceased sustaining several injuries- he was
rushed to the hospital- undergone a surgery- eventually died- post-
mortem report- death due to head injuries. Trial court convicted for
rigorous imprisonment- u/ss 302 r/w 34, 294 and 323- HC acquitted one
of the accused and upheld the sentence of the rest.
• Death of Vrindawan (deceased) took place after about 20 days on
account of complication of surgery
Fault with medical treatment- delay etc
• Minimal Causation: the intervention of the doctor is in the nature of minimum
causation and hence his intervention would have played only a minor part (if any) in
causing death. See explanation 2 of 299.
• Principle of reasonable foresight- Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1977): what all must be
proved to secure a conviction u/s 302-
1. It must be established quite objectivelyhat a bodily injury is present;
2. the nature of the injury must be proved. These are purely objective investigations.
3. it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury, that is to
say that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was
intended.
4. it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three
elements set out above was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
Mensrea
Sweet v. Parsley- Lord Morris
• It has frequently been affirmed and should unhesitatingly be
recognized that it is cardinal principle of our law that mens rea, an evil
intent or a knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act is in all ordinary
cases an essential ingredient of guilt of criminal offence.
• The particular mental state which must be proved against the accused
under the definitions of the different crimes. This varies from case to
case, but there are typical instances which we consider after a brief
examination of the rule that ignorance of law and morals is generally
no excuse.
Intention
• Whether you intended those consequences
• Direct intention- you aimed at achieving something and is likely to
succeed.
• A sank his boat in the river for recovering insurance- few people drowned
and died- what is the offence committed by A?
• A’s direct intention (expected/ wanted consequence)- boat sinks and he
can claim the insurance
• People died- not what A expected or needed- it is the consequence which
would be foreseen by him to be probable or certain- oblique intention
• Specific intent-
R v Steane
• Where an intent is charged in an indictment, the burden of proving
that intent remains throughout on the prosecution. If the prosecution
prove an act the natural consequence of which would be certain
result and no evidence or explanation is given without any intent at all
by reason of some duress, he must have intended by that act to assist
the enemy. Before venturing into the duress part- the prosecution
shall prove an intent to assist the enemy.
• Differentiating motive and intention- a person did an act for this or
that reason is his motive not an intention. Intention is the result of
deliberation upon the motives and the object arrived at by the action
caused.
Intention to assist enemies
• When a person does an act it is obvious that he knows the natural
consequences. Similarly, if a person intends to do an act he intends
the natural consequences as well- well suits for intention in general.
• What if the offence requires a particular intent- consider a violence
under SC, ST (PoA) Act. A caused grievous injury to B using weapon-
what is the crime committed? What is in excess required for securing
a conviction under the special law? A shoots B- B is injured- what is
the offence- is there any way it can be reduced to an offence of
causing grievous hurt?
• Deliberate intent: intent + pre- planned/ Pre- conceived/ not a
momentarily caused intention.
Deliberate intention- Kamala Kant Singh v.
Chairman, Bennetta Colman- (1952)
• Reports and articles published against Satsang- offences charged-
sections – 120 B, 153, 153A, 292, 295A, 298 of the IPC.
• Sec. 298- “deliberate intention”

State of Tamil Nadu v Nalini: LTTE conspired to kill the PM. What was
the intention of the LTTE- to kill PM or to over throw the government?
Intending to kill Rajiv Gandhi is no evidence to show intent to strike
terror. To attract TADA- overawing the Government cannot be a
consequence, but it has to be a primary object.
Transferred intent- R v. Saunders and Archer
• John Saunders- married, but is in love with another woman- John decides to kill
his wife for marrying the love of his life.
• Alexander Archer- accomplice- John discussed his plans and John desires Archer’s
help in the execution of the plan. They decided to kill Mrs. Saunders by poison.
• Mrs. Saunders was unwell- Archer bought the poison (Ar and Roseacre) and
delivered it to John. John administered the poisoned roasted apples to his wife.
She took a bite and gave the rest to Eleanor Saunders (the child of Mr and Mrs.
Saunders)
• John saw his wife giving the poisoned apple to his daughter and blamed his wife
saying it is unfit for infant to which she replied in negative. John saw his daughter
eating the apple without offering any step to take back the apple from his
daughter. Later, the wife recovered however the child died.
• Did John committed murder?
R v. Saunders
• John has no intention to poison his daughter
• He does not have any malice against his daughter
• He loved his daughter- it was his wife who ignorantly gave the poison
• Though he could have avoided the harm by suitable intervention- not doing so per se
amounts to felony
• Chief Judge (trial)- found this to be a murder committed by John for the following
reasons:
John gave poison with an intent to kill a person (Mrs. Saunders).
By giving the poison he intended that the death should follow
Death followed, though not to the desired person
John has committed murder- he was the original cause of death- because his intent is evil
It is every man’s business to foresee what wrong or mischief may happen from that he
does with an ill- intention, and it shall be no excuse for him to say that he intended to kill
another and not the person killed.
Recklesness
• 2 senses- 1. conscious taking of an unjustified risk, 2. conduct which in fact
involves an unjustified risk of which the person ought to have been aware.
• A’s purpose (direct intention) is to frighten B by pointing a revolver at him and
pulling the trigger; he has no wish to kill B but realizes that there is a risk of
doing so in the following situations in which he takes a revolver from a crate
containing a thousands of revolvers save one are loaded:
A knows that all the revolvers are loaded
A knows that more than 500 are loaded
A knows that less than 500 are loaded
A knows that some of the revolvers may be loaded, it may be only one, it may
be many and he has no means of assessing the risk
Recklesness
• Knowledge of the risk + the risk should be unjustified
How great was the risk?
How beneficial to society or to the victim was the object which the
accused was seeking to achieve?
R v. Cunningham (1957)
• The prospective mother in- law of the appellant has a rented house at
Bakes Street. After the marriage the appellant would occupy the house.
• Type of the house: One house was converted into two houses by erecting a
wall composed of rubble loosely cemented. A part of this house was rented
out by the appellant’s prospective mother in- law. An elderly couple
occupied the other part.
• On Jan 17, 1957- appellant went to the house wrenched the gas meter from
the gas pipes and stole it- he tore the meter off the wall and threw it away.
There was a stop tap within 2 feet of the meter. The appellant did not turn
off the gas- considerable volume of gas escaped some of which spread to
the other side of the house and partially asphyxiated Mrs. Wade.
• R v. Caldwell (1982)
Sec. 23 Offences against the Persons Act,
1861
• Whoever shall unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be
administered to or taken by another person any poison or other
destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of
such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous
bodily harm, shall be guilty of felony.
• Maliciously- foresight of crime
• Subjective recklessness/ common knowledge
Negligence
• Non compliance with a standard of conduct
• It definitely involves fault- usually less blameworthy than intentional
or reckless wrongdoing.
• Logic behind making negligent act culpable- a person could have
avoided behaving as he did, if had only exercised reasonable degree
of self- control, been reasonably thoughtful, or exerted himself to a
moderate extent.
Knowledge
• Knowledge of facts by virtue of which an act or omission is criminal is
expressly required in the case of many statutory offences on account of the
inclusion of word as “knowingly” in the definition but “knowingly” is not only
the word which will have this effect.
• Degrees of Knowledge- Roper v. Taylor’s Central Garage (Exeter) Limited (1951)
I. A shoots B- conduct of A will say that he knew that B would either die or be
injured- Actual Knowledge.
II. A owns a house which he wishes to rent out. The owner shall make
necessary inquiries about the tenant. A rented his house to B deliberately
without making inquiries. B happened to be a terrorist.- Actual knowledge
in the eyes of law.
III. What if A unintentionally fails to make inquiries which a reasonable prudent
man will make- constructive knowledge
R v. Taaffe
• Taaffe had been enlisted by the third party in Holland to import a
substance from that country into England. The substance had in fact
been cannabis, importation of which was prohibited by the 1971 Act.
• Taaffe believed the substance to be currency- currency was not
subject of prohibition.
• A man must be judged upon the facts as he believes them to be in
accepted principle of criminal law when the state of man’s mind and
his knowledge are the ingredients of the offence with which he is
charged.