Mens Rea: Its overview

 

    The common law maxim 'actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea' i.e. the act itself does not make man guilty, unless his intentions were so sufficiently, indicates the conditions of penal liability. It is a cardinal principle of criminal law, that a man is responsible not for his acts in themselves but for his acts coupled with the mens rea with which he does them. There are two components of crime such as physical act or actus reus and the guilty mind or mens rea.

Actus reus refers to the act or omission that comprise the physical elements of a crime as required by statute.

 Glanville Williams, in his book "Criminal Law" General Part (2nd edition) at page 18, says :

"actus reus means the whole definition of the crime with the exception of the mental element and it even includes a mental element in so far as that is contained in the definition of an act. This meaning of actus reus follows inevitably from the proposition that all the constituents of a crime are either actus reus or mens rea.

    Mens rea is a latin term which means 'guilty mind'. It is a technical term, generally taken to mean some blameworthy mental condition. No act is per se criminal. The act becomes criminal when the action done is with a guilty mind. For instance, causing injury to an assailant in self defense is no crime, but the moment injury is caused with intent to take revenge, the act becomes criminal. Therefore, before imposing punishment, the law must be satisfied that  an act has been done with foresight of harmful results and the mental attitude of the  wrong doer towards his deed. The act is not judged from the mind of the wrong doer but the mind of the wrong doer is judged from the acts.

Whether Mens rea is an essential constituent to constitute the offence under the IPC, 1860?

    The doctrine of mens rea has no application to the offences in general under the Indian Penal Code. However the doctrine has been incorporated in two ways, namely:

1.    The provisions as to the state of mind required for a particular offence have been added by using such words as intentionally, knowingly, voluntarily, fraudulently, dishonestly etc. depending on the gravity of the offence concerned.

2.    The concept of mens rea has been incorporated into the provisions relating to 'General Exceptions' contained in Chapter IV of the Code.

    There are many offences under the IPC which however do not have intention or knowledge as a necessary ingredient namely:

a)     Crimes of strict and absolute liability.

b)     Statutory offences of abduction, kidnapping, rape and offences against the State and Army.

c)     Cases of public nuisance, libel and contempt of court, etc.

d)    Offences created by statutes that are regulatory in nature like violation of municipal laws, town planning laws, traffic regulations etc.

d)    Offences which incorporate the principle of vicarious liablity.

e)    Public welfare offences which include socio-economic offences relating to food, drugs, weights and measurements which are quasi-criminal in nature.

Therefore there are certain number of exceptional case which can be committed without guilty mind. It is to be noted that unless the statute, either clearly or by necessary implication, rules out mens rea as a constituent part of crime an accused should not be found guilty of an offence unless he has got a guilty mind.

State of Maharashtra vs Mayer Hans George AIR 1965 S.C 722, Justice Subbarao observed:

    There is a presumption that mens rea is an essential ingredient of a statutory offence; but this may be rebutted by the express words of a statute creating the offence or by necessary implication. But the mere fact that the object of a statute is to promote welfare activities or to eradicate grave social evils is in itself not decisive of the question whether the element of guilty mind is excluded from the ingredients of the offence. Mens rea by necessary implication can be excluded from a statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of a statute would otherwise be defeated and its exclusion enables those put under strict liability by their act or omission to assist the promotion of the law. The nature of mens rea that will be implied in a statute creating an offence depends upon the object of the Act and the provisions there of.

In Russell on Crime, 11th edn. Vol. 1, it is stated at p. 64:.......... there is a presumption that in any statutory crime the common law mental element, mens rea, is an essential ingredient."

In Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd edn. Vol. 10, in para, 508, at p. 273, the following passage appears:

"A statutory crime may or may not contain an express definition of the necessary state of mind. A statute may require a specific intention, malice, knowledge, wilfulness. or recklessness. On the other hand, it may be silent as to any requirement of mens rea, and in such a case in order to determine whether or not mens rea is an essential element of the offence, it is necessary to look at the objects and terms of the statute." This passage also indicates that the absence of any specific mention of a state of mind as an ingredient of an offence in a statute is not decisive of the question whether mens rea is an ingredient of the offence or not: it depends upon the object and the terms of the statute. 

 "It has always been a principle of the common law that mens rea is an essential element in the commission of any criminal offence against the common law In the case of statutory offences it depends on the effect of the statute...... There is a presumption that mens era is an essential ingredient in a statutory offence, but this presumption is liable to be displaced either  by the works of the statute creating the offence or by the subject matter with which it deals." 

In SEBI vs Cabot International Capital Corporation (2005) 123 Comp. Cases 841 (Bom).

The Supreme Court summarised the  following principles: 

(A) Mens rea is an essential or sine qua non for criminal offence.

(B) Strait jacket formula of mens rea cannot be blindly followed in each and every case.

The nature of mens rea that would be implied in a statute creating an offence depends on the object of the Act and the provision thereof (Nathu Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43)

In Gangula Mohan Reddy vs State Of A.P AIR 2010 SC 327 was held that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.

Therefore generally speaking, mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. And it is sound rule of construction to construe a statutory provision creating an offence in conformity with this rule rather than against it.