Mens Rea and Actus Reus - Essential Core Concepts in Criminal Law

Meaning of Mens Rea

Mens rea or guilty intention is the sine qua non of a criminal act and is an essential element of a crime. The law differentiates between persons who may have acted innocently or by mistake, and those who have acted consciously with intent to cause harm. If law were to punish persons who acted innocently and who had no intention whatsoever to cause harm, then there would be no public acceptance of the same. The object of the law is always to punish a person with a guilty mind. It does not want to put behind bars an innocent person who may have had the misfortune of being involved in an incident and event, which he did not have the intention of participating in.

The underlying principle of the doctrine of mens rea is expressed in the familiar Latin maxim - actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea - the act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also guilty.

The fact that mens rea has been made central to criminal liability, also includes that every person has the capacity to choose between right and wrong. Once a person makes a choice, he has to take the responsibility for the same.

The necessity of a guilty mind differs with offence. In the instance of murder, it is the intent to kill; in the case of theft, it is the intent to steal; in the case of rape, it is the intent to have sexual relations with a woman without her consent, and so on.

Penal statutes, which define or describe what is an offence, very often bring in the mental element to the act by using the words, 'intentionally', 'voluntarily', 'willfully', 'knowingly', 'reason to believe' etc. These words have been used in the different definitions of crime to indicate the state of the mind of the person at the time of commission of the offence.

The element of mens rea as an essential ingredient of a crime is also approved by the growing modern philosophy of penology. Modern day criminal jurisprudence no longer accepts retribution as the main object of criminal law. The object is that punishment should fit the offender and not merely the offence.

Mens Rea in the BNS

Mens Rea has been recognized in BNS by :

1. Importing different terms indicating evil intent, and
2. Chapter on General Exception

Different terms indicating mens rea

The BNS sets out the definition of offences, the general conditions of liability, the conditions of exemptions from liability and punishments for the respective offences. Common law doctrine of mens rea has not been specifically provided in the Sanhita. However, it has been imported by using different terms indicating the required evil intent or mens rea as an essence of a particular offence. Almost all the offences under the IPC are qualified by one or the other words such as 'wrongful gain wrongful loss', 'dishonestly', 'fraudulently', ''reason to believe', 'criminal knowledge or intention' 'intentional cooperation', 'voluntarily', 'malignantly', 'wantonly', maliciously. All these words indicate the blameworthy mental condition required at the time of commission of the offence, in order to constitute an offence.

Mens rea is not a unitary concept. Depending on the nature of the crime, mens rea may be presence or existence of intention in some cases, or requirement of knowledge in some, and negligence in some others.

Intention as Mens rea

Intention is the conscious exercise of the mental faculties of a person to do an act with a specific goal or outcome in mind. Intention, therefore, is usually used in relation to the consequences of an act, and not in relation to the act itself. It is not just about doing an act, but doing it with a specific aim or purpose in mind.

Example 1 - If a person fires a gun at someone with the desire to kill, the act of shooting is accompanied by the intention to cause death this intention forms the mental component (mens rea) of the offence of murder.

Example 2 - If a person strikes another person because they want to cause harm, the intention is to injure and that intention forms the mental element (mens rea) of the offence.

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', 'willfully', 'deliberately', 'deliberate intention', 'with the purpose of'. All these varied expressions find place in the various sections of the IPC.

Intention and Motive

Intention and motive are often mistaken as the same, but they are quite different in criminal law. Intention refers to the immediate purpose behind doing an act that a person wants to achieve. On the other hand, motive is the reason or emotion that drives a person to form that intention such as anger, jealousy, greed, revenge, or love.

Legal scholar Austin explained this difference by saying that motive is the "spring of action", while intention is the "aim of the act" meaning that motive pushes a person to act, and intention is what the person aims to achieve by that act. For example, if a person kills someone out of jealousy, the intention is to cause death, while the motive is jealousy. In criminal law, intention is essential to establish guilt, but motive is not required to prove a crime. However, motive can still be important in a case especially when deciding how serious the punishment should be. A strong or evil motive can increase the sentence (aggravation), while a sympathetic motive might reduce it (mitigation).

In Shamsher Singh v State of Haryana (2002), wherein evidence of eyewitnesses and the medical evidence disclosed that the death of the deceased was due to the injury caused by the accused, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused under s 302, IPC, even though there was no direct motive for causing the Homicide. In Om Prakash v State of Uttaranchal (2003), rejecting the plea that the prosecution could not indicate the motive for killing three members of a family, the Supreme Court ruled that failure to prove motive is irrelevant in a case wherein guilt of the accused is proved." Conversely, motive by itself cannot be proof of an offence. Conversely, the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v Arun Kumar (2003), emphasised that proof of motive in the absence of proof of guilt of an accused does not warrant his conviction.

Knowledge as Mens Rea

In criminal law, knowledge means a person's awareness or understanding of certain facts or consequences related to their actions. It reflects the mental state where the person knows that what they are doing will likely lead to a particular result. A person is said to have knowledge when they directly perceive something through their senses, or when they are informed of a fact by someone they have no reason to doubt.

Knowledge is subjective, it depends on what the individual personally knew at the time of the act. It is different from intention, though the two often overlap. Intention involves actively wanting a certain outcome, while knowledge involves being aware that a certain outcome will probably happen, even if not desired.

The line between intention and knowledge can be thin but important. For instance:

• Knowledge is a passive mental awareness - the person understands the consequence.
• Intention is an active mental decision - the person wants the consequence to happen.

Example 1 - B supplies drinking water to workers knowing that the water is contaminated. As a result, several workers fall seriously ill. B had knowledge of the harmful nature of the water but still allowed its use, he will be liable even though he did not intend to.

Example 2 - C, the owner of a building, is told by engineers that the structure is unsafe and likely to collapse. He still rents it out. The building later collapses, killing a tenant. C acted with knowledge of the danger and will be made liable.

Example 3 - D, a pharmacist, knowingly sells expired medicines, which leads to serious harm to a patient. D had no intention to harm but had knowledge of the risk.

Negligence as Mens rea

In criminal law, negligence refers to a person's failure to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to others. It means not acting with the level of caution, attention, or skill that a reasonable and prudent person would exercise in similar circumstances. This carelessness can lead to unintended harm, which the law may treat as a criminal offence.

Criminal negligence is more than just an ordinary mistake, it involves a gross or serious lack of care, especially in situations where safety and life are at risk. For example, a doctor performing surgery without proper hygiene, or a driver speeding through a crowded area, may both be criminally negligent.

Although negligence is not a mental state like intention or knowledge, and does not usually involve a guilty mind (mens rea), the BNS (Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita) still recognizes it as a basis for criminal liability in certain situations. This is because, in such cases, the law punishes negligence not to blame the mind, but to encourage higher standards of responsibility and protect public safety.

Thus, negligence in criminal law is more of a legal fault than a mental state, and its punishment serves a social purpose to discourage careless conduct that endangers others.

Chapter on General Exception

The chapter on General Exceptions ultimately outlines situations that are inconsistent with the presence of the required guilty mind or mens rea, and therefore exempt the individual from criminal liability. For example, acts committed under a mistake of fact, by a child under seven years of age, or by a person of unsound mind, do not amount to offences because the necessary mental element is absent. In this way, the chapter, albeit in a negative form, acknowledges the common law principle of mens rea.

Also Like to Read - Leading Questions under BSA or IEA Explained

Actus Reus

A mere criminal intention not followed by a prohibited act cannot constitute a crime. In juristic concept, actus reus represents the physical aspect of crime. Actus reus has been defined as 'such result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent'.

According to legal understanding, actus means a voluntary act or omission, and reus refers to something forbidden by law. Thus, actus reus can be defined as an act forbidden by law.

Constituents of Actus Reus

Actus Reus typically consists of three elements:

1. Voluntary Act

A criminal act must be a voluntary act committed by a human being. A voluntary act can be defined as an event subject to the control of will, such as giving a blow, stealing, etc. An act may also include words, gestures, or other external signs of intent.

According to Austin, any movement of the body, which is not in consequence of the determination of the will, is not a voluntary act. It is only a Voluntary act that amounts to an offence. An act on the part of the accused is involuntary where it is beyond his control or beyond the control of his mind.

Act includes omission

The word "act" includes illegal omissions. However, criminal liability for omissions arises only when there is a legal duty to act. Such legal duties to act might arise out of relationships or contracts, or might be imposed by statutes.

In Om Prakash v. State of Punjab (1961), the husband was convicted of attempted murder for denying food to his wife, causing her starvation. The court held that omission of duty arising out of marital relationship amounted to criminal liability.

2. Harm or injury (Causation)

In most criminal offences, the act must result in harm which may be physical, mental, reputational, or economic.

However, not all offences require actual harm. Inchoate offences like attempt, conspiracy, perjury, or forgery may be criminal without resulting in actual damage.

Requirement of Causal Link

Where harm is an essential part of the offence, it must be the direct and proximate result of the accused's act. The harm must be causa causans (immediate cause), not merely causa sine qua non (a proximate cause).

In Moti Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (1964), The Supreme Court held that in order to convict a person for murder or culpable homicide, it must be clearly established that the death of the victim was directly caused by the injuries inflicted by the accused. Merely proving that the injuries were dangerous to life is not sufficient unless there is conclusive evidence that the death occurred as a direct consequence of those injuries. The Court emphasised that the causal link between the act and the death must not be too remote. If the prosecution fails to prove the exact cause of death or does not produce medical evidence (such as a post-mortem report), the accused cannot be held criminally liable for causing the death.

Rewaram v State of MP (1978), Court held that when the death of a person results from a supervening or intervening cause, such as a medical condition, which itself arose directly due to the injuries inflicted by the accused, the accused will still be criminally liable for causing death. The court clarified that if the injuries cause a weakened or debilitated condition, and death results from that condition, even if indirectly, the chain of causation is not broken.

3. Prohibited by Law

Not all harmful or wrongful acts are crimes. An act becomes a crime only when it is expressly prohibited by law. No crime is committed when the act is legally justified or authorised irrespective of the harm or injury caused.

Examples - A soldier killing an enemy during war is not a crime; A hangman executing a prisoner under a judicial order is not a crime; A person acting in private defence causing injury is not a crime.