Abstract

The legislation was frequently not written with the intention of enticing the people, even if it was
designed to protect the people. The history of common law is muddied by superfluous cryptic
terminology, and the layperson finds it challenging to understand the precise ideas1 of-the legislator
due to the need to comprehend minute, ambiguous nuances. Although the introduction of the
Revised Penal Code has reduced some of the legal languages2, it may still
be difficult for someone to comprehend their legal rights, their guilt, or the meaning of potentially
obscure offences due to the sheer amount of information available3. We frequently
hear the phrases "accessory" and "conspiracy" used in youth culture, but find it difficult to
comprehend why "clearly devious" people frequently escape punishment in real life. In most
circumstances, this propensity may be attributed to "Actus Reus and Mens Rea," the two elements
of a crime that must exist for an individual to be guilty4 . The classic explanation of "Actus Reus
and Mens Rea" has significant drawbacks, which are discussed in this article. Important underlying
concepts may be concealed by the word "Actus Reus," and there may be complications because of
the fact that the term "Mens Rea" has several different meanings. Defenses are also taken into
account since the way they are labeled and organized might be confusing and obfuscate underlying
concepts. Understanding these components of the criminal
law's restrictions can help one better comprehend the underlying concepts of criminal culpability.

Introduction
In the vast majority of crimes, "Mens Rea" and "Actus Reus" are the two key elements'. "Guilty
mind (Mens Rea)" is a Latin phrase". The rule's justification is that society shouldn't penalize those
who accidentally do harm to others. "Actus Reus", which means "guilty act" in Latin, generally
refers to an action that is taken to further a crime?. Society has made the decision to only penalize
poor behaviors rather than harmful thoughts when a crime demands an overt deed®. The Latin
phrase "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" directly translates, as "A person is not guilty unless
both the mind and the act are guilty." If someone is guilty, it is established that either his or her
thoughts and actions are guilty or blameworthy. To commit a crime, there has to be an occurrence of
Mens Rea and Actus Reus simultaneously. For example, let's say that there are 2 people Mr. A and
Mr. B. They both went to the jungle for hunting. Mr. A uses a gun and shoots at a deer but the bullet
accidentally hits Mr. B leading to his death. In this scene Mr. A will not be charged with murder
because one of the basic elements for constituting a crime i.e., Mens Rea was missing. Different
crimes call for varying levels of intent. For instance, the prosecution must show that the defendant
purposefully took something to which he knew he was not entitled with the aim to permanently
deny the owner of ownership in order to prove larceny. Contrarily, negligent homicide entails
carelessness, accident, or inattention when it comes to one's responsibility to treat others with
respect.

Criminal negligent homicide is a common accusation used against a drunk driver who kills
someone.

CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPT

Mens Rea - Latin's translation of "guilty mind" is Mens Rea. Mens Rea is the legal term used to
describe the mental state necessary to commit a crime 2. Mens Rea is often separated into four
categories since the requirements for each degree of application vary depending on the crime:
 The defendant must have intended for the specified outcome in order to proceed to the
first stage, intent. This amount of Mens Rea is frequently necessary for first-degree
murder and the majority of stealing offences, but not for other crimes.

A defendant must have knowledge of the act's anticipated outcome to be found guilty at
the second level, known as knowing. This amount of intention is necessary for second-
degree murder and the majority of attacks,

The defendant must have been mindful of the risk in order to be found guilty of third-
degree, recklessness. Involuntary manslaughter is one example, such as when a person
dies as a result of drunk driving.

The defendant must have been negligent stage four, where it is required that they
should have recognized a risk but did not. Although it is a typical civil norm, most
crimes call for more than carelessness 13 and Juridical Sciences

Actus Reus - Actus Reus is the legal term for the act or omission that constitutes a crime's physical
components. Actus Reus only refers to voluntarily proactive actions or omissions (failures to act)
that result in prohibited behavior under the law'4.

Criminal Liability - Criminal culpability is the term used to describe both the blame for an act and
the punishment that society imposes. Because crimes hurt humanity collectively, a state attorney
(prosecutor) files charges against the criminal on behalf of its peoplels. If the prosecution can
demonstrate that the defendant committed the crime and had the necessary intent to be held
accountable, then the defendant may be found guilty of the offense!.

Criminal Defendant - Criminal defendants are those who have been accused of committing
"a Misdemeanor or felony offense" and have been the subject of a presentment, indictment, or other
legal action, but have not yet received a verdict or punishment for the crime!?.

General Exceptions - The arguments offered to the defendant which absolve criminal
responsibility are known as general exceptions!8
There are various exclusions that might render an act or omission non-criminal or non-offense,
which implies that an accused can be shielded from criminal accountability for any unlawful act or
omission done by him!.

Good Faith - Indian criminal law provides a definition of good faith in Section 52. Nothing should
be spoken, done, or taken seriously without adequate consideration. When an act is
HEROSY INTENTION

Journal of Legal Research and Juridical Sciences

"Specific intent" and "general intent" are other terms that are used to describe someone's mental
state22. The prosecution need not show that the defendant actually wanted the particular result;
general intent is the desire to carry out any unlawful activity. The phrase "particular purpose" often
refers to an element of a crime that is distinguishable from the Actus Reus24 and usually indicates a
purposeful or knowing state of mind. For instance, the prosecution must show that the defendant
meant to take the item in a theft case. Statutes frequently utilize phrases like "purposeful,"
"knowing," "reckless," or "negligent" to describe varying degrees of intent?.

The law itself says "Ignorantia Facti Excusat" a Latin term which means, "Ignorance of Fact is an
excuse" but "Ignorantia Juris non excusat" which means, "Ignorance of Law is no Excuse?

MISTAKE OF FACT

Mistake of fact is a General Defence by the virtue of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 i.e., Sections 76
and 7928. Mistake of fact is one of the defenses available to get an exemption from Criminal
Liability. The basic Principle of this defence is that the act or offence must not be Pre-arranged or
Pre-meditated or Pre-planned.

"Section 76 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860" states the act that is done by a person who is bound or
by the virtue of a Mistake of fact, believes himself to be bound by law?. This section clearly states
that any person who has done an act or offence who is or who by reason of a Mistake of Fact and
not by reason of Mistake of law had done an act or offence by the virtue of good faith, believes
himself to be bound or commanded by law to do that act or offence.

In Case "R v. Ms. Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168.30»3

Facts of the Case: The Appellant and Defendant were married. The appellant went missing as the
ship he was on, got lost in the sea in December 1881. The defendant waited for the Appellant (her
husband) for six years, hoping that someday he will return. The defendant then remarried eventually
believing her husband to be dead. After her remarriage, eleven months later, her husband
(Appellant) returned and then when he got the knowledge of his wife's remarriage, filed the appeal
against her for bigamy?.

Judgment of the Case: The appeals court stated that notwithstanding the absence of phrases like
"knowingly committing bigamy" or "deliberately committing bigamy," which would have excused
her, Ms. Tolson was nevertheless protected in this case by an antiquated common lawprinciple. The
court determined that an "honest and reasonable belief" in the presence of circumstances that, if
true, would render the accused's actions innocent constituted a valid defence 32

In Case "R v. Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154.33»9

Facts of the Case: Henry Prince was found guilty of removing an unmarried girl under the age of
16 from her father's custody without the father's permission "under Section 55 of the Offenses
against Person Act, 1861." Although Annie Phillips, the girl, was actually 14 years old, Henry
Prince had a good basis to assume that she was 18 because Annie Phillips had stated it to him.
Against his conviction, the appellant filed an appeal34

Judgment of the Case: The court is not required to construe a statute's absence of a Mens Rea
requirement as requiring Mens Rea for an offense. Since the offense included strict responsibility
for age, it was not necessary to prove that the defendant had actual awareness of her age in order to
prove the offense. Because Henry Prince's reasonable belief was inadmissible, the conviction was
upheld35
"Section 79 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860" states the act done by a person justified or believes by
the Mistake of Fact that his act is justified by law. The Section clearly states that an act or offence
done by a person who is justified by law or who by the reason of Mistake of Fact and not by the
virtue of Mistake of Law, in good faith believes his actions to be justified by law when doing that
act or offence. An element of the crime will be ruled out if the criminal defendant can show that he
committed the conduct because of a factual error or misinterpretation of certain information.

In Case "State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi (1978) Cri LJ 130537»

Facts of the Case: The accused a tribal in the forest, with bona fide intention believed that it was a
bear, took a shoot at the bear who was destroying the crop field, by mistake, shot the victim, which
led to his death??.

Judgment of the Case: The Court held that the death that occurred was by mistake of fact and not
by mistake of law. The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa acquitted the accused by the virtue of "Section
79 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.39»
In Case "Chirangi v. State (1952)53 Cr LJ 1212 (M.P.)40%

Facts of the Case: Together with his kid, Chirangi Lohar traveled to a hilltop. His nephew
discovered that the boy was missing and that the man had an axe that was covered in blood when he
got home and went to bed. When questioned, he claimed that he had gone mad and had killed his
kid under the false pretense that a tiger was approaching. His psychiatrist provided evidence to
support his claim of insanity. Furthermore, there was a tremendously strong bond between father
and kid, which supports the claim that Chirangi had no justification for killing his own sontl.of
Legal

Judgment of the Case: The defence of mistake of fact was applied and therefore the accused
Chirangi Lohar wasn't held responsible for the offence of killing his own son as he was into a belief
that there was a tiger that was approaching towards him?.

MISTAKE OF LAW

There is no defence that is considered when there is a mistake of law by someone. When a person
commits a crime and asks for a defence for the mistake of Law, the Court does not allow or consider
it as a defence44.

In the case "Grant v. Borg (1982) 1 WLR 638 HL".

WHAT ARE MEN'S REA AND ACTUS REUS TOGETHER45?

A person's intent and the act itself, if it is unlawful, come together to generate a crime rather than an
act acting alone. There are times when the specifics of the case are also considered.

The mere desire to murder someone does not constitute a crime, for instance, if person "A" is
furious with person "B" and, in a moment of weakness, desires to kill person "B," but afterward
decides against doing so. The same thing may happen if someone accidentally enters someone else's
property without intending to harm or hurt that person. Because he had no desire to do the act, the
individual cannot be held accountable in such a situation.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN'S REA AND ACTUS REUS*?.

There is not a great difference between Mens Rea and Actus Reus as both are the essential element
that constitutes a crime. Both of these are the only essential factor for establishing a crime. The only
difference is based on their very name itself i.e. Mens Rea justifies a "Mental element" and Actus
Reum justifies a "Physical Element". In many criminal acts, the mental element i.e. "Mens Rea"
befalls prior to the Actus Reus because the person who is committing the crime must have the
intention or knowledge of the act or offense that the person will be committing.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DEGREE OF THE CRIME AND THE PUNISHMENT

DESIGNATED FOR THE CRIME INFLICTED

"Mens Rea" is the legal term for a "guilty state of mind" that includes awareness of the
consequences as well as intention or purpose. "Mens Rea" refers to the degree of mental
involvement in the crime and is a direct indicator of the degree of accountability*. The severity of
the penalty increases with the severity of "Mens Rea" in the offenses.

For instance, intentionally killing a person, which would be considered murder, would carry the
harshest penalty under the law due to the high degree of "Mens Rea" involved, but if someone is
accidentally hit and dies, the person would not be held responsible for any crime since there was no
"Mens Rea."

CASES RELATED TO MEN'S REA AND ACTUS REUS

In Case "Sweet v. Parsley [1970] AC 13251»

Facts of the Case: The subtenant of the farmhouse where cannabis resin was discovered was the
appellant, Stephanie Sweet. Stephanie Sweet had rented out numerous rooms in the home to renters
because she no longer resided there. Even while she still had a room, she seldom went in to get mail
or pay rent. The defendant was accused and found guilty under Section 5(b) of the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1965 (the 1965 Act) of "being interested in the administration of premises used for the
purpose of smoking cannabis resin

Judgment of the Case: "Section 5(b) of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1965" established no absolute
offense. The assumption of "Mens Rea" applies to "real" criminal offenses unless Parliament
expressly declares that an offense is an absolute or regulatory offense. Because the phrase "being
interested in the management" in Section 5(b) had to be interpreted as implying knowledge of the
premises' use for an unlawful purpose, the offense constituted a "true crime" rather than a regulatory
crime. As a result, the conviction was overturned because StephanieSweet because it lacked the
necessary "Mens Rea" to commit the crime as defined by "Section 5(b) of the Dangerous Drugs act.

Origin and Development of Mens Rea:

Notion of mens rea in early primitive societies was non-existent and liability was
absolute and offender was responsible whether he acted innocently or negligently.
In the earlier times the trials were held on fundamental presumption that a man must almost in
every case be deemed to have intended to do what he had done. In those days the distinction
between crime and tort was not clearly drawn and punishment in those days mainly consisted of
money compensation to the person wronged. Therefore, the mental attitude of a person was an
irrelevant consideration. But later on bodily punishment came as a substitute of the payment of
damages. It was then that the importance of mens rea at the time of commission of crime was
realized. With the passage of time the requirement of mens rea as an essential of a crime has firmly
taken its root.

Before the 13th century, the doctrine of mens rea was almost non-existent. Even then it was not
completely disregarded and was kept in view in awarding the punishment. But by the end of 17th
century it was universally settled law that mens rea is an essential ingredient of crime.

IlI. Application of Principle of Mens Rea to Statutory Offences:

The principle of mens rea has been applied to all common law offences in England without any
exception. But the answer to the question that whether it is applicable to statutory offences was
uncertain upto 1947. The question whether the common law requirement of mens rea must be
imported into every crime defined in the statute even where it is not expressly mentioned as an
essential element has been discussed in a number of cases. R. v.
Prince and Queen v. Tolson are the two leading cases on this point.

In the case of R. v. Prince, Prince Henry was tried for having unlawfully taken away an unmarried
girl, below the age of 16 years, out of the lawful custody and against the will of her father, under the
belief that she was 18 years old. Jury found that before the accused took her away, the girl had told
him that she has attained the age of 18 years. It was held that the accused's belief about the age of
girl was no defence. It was argued that the statute did not insist on this knowledge of the accused,
the doctrine of mens rea, should, nevertheless be applied and conviction be set aside in the absence
of criminal intention.

16 Judges tried the case and all but one unanimously held Prince liable. By a majority of fifteen to
one the court held that: "A mistaken belief, even though based on reasonable grounds, that the girl
was over sixteen years of age is no defence to a charge of kidnapping-a statutory offence of taking a
girl under sixteen years of age out of possession and against the will of her parents or guardian". A
distinction was drawn between the acts that were in themselves innocent but made punishable by
statute (malum prohibitum) and acts that were intrinsically wrong and immoral (malum in se). In
the former, a belief, a reasonable belief in the existence of the facts, if true, would take the case out
of the mischief of the statute and would not be proved specifically.

Brett J. who gave a dissenting opinion, was of the view that in order to constitute an offence mens
rea is essential and it was necessary to the prosecution to establish mens rea on the part of the
accused.

Three theories were propounded in this case:

(1) Brett J. propounds that in order to constitute a crime, mens rea is essential. (ii) Denman J. held
that the liability was based on the ground that the accused knowinglycommitted a civil wrong
by taking a minor girl from the lawful custody of her parents.
I J. held that it was sufficient to establish that Prince had intended to commit an The real reason, as
has been stated above, for the conviction was that the accused ed an act which was forbidden by the
statute.

In the case of Queen v. Tolson, the Court held that "a reasonable belief in good faith in the death of
the first spouse negatives mens rea, and is a good defence to a charge of bigamy."

The marriage of the accused (Mrs. Tolson) to Mr. Tolson took place in 1880 and Mr. Tolson
deserted her on December 13, 1881. She and her father made inquiries about him and ultimately
came to know that he had been lost in a vessel bound for America, which went down with all hands
on board. On January 10, 1887, the accused, supposing her to be a widow, went through a ceremony
of marriage with another man. The circumstances were well known to the second husband and the
ceremony was in no way concealed. In December 1887, Mr. Tolson suddenly reappeared. Upon
these facts Mrs. Tolson was charged of Bigamy under Section 57 the Offences against the Persons
Act, 1861.

In the Trial Court she (the accused) was convicted, and then she filed the appeal before
the higher court. The question before the Court of Appeal was whether Mrs. Tolson had guilty
intention in committing the offence of bigamy. The Court by majority set aside the conviction on
the ground that a bona fide belief about the death of first husband at the time of second marriage is a
good defence. The Court also laid down that the doctrine of mens rea would be applied in statutory
offences also unless the same is ruled out by the statute.

In this case the accused acted in good faith upon reasonable and probable cause of belief without
rashness or negligence, therefore, she is not to be considered guilty as she was found to be
mistaken. In the case of R. v. Wheat & Stock, Wheat a man of little education, instructed his
solicitors to obtain a divorce from his first wife, and received a telegram from them that he would
shortly receive the necessary papers for signatures. He there upon married Stocks, and at his trial for
bigamy, the Jury found that he believed on reasonable ground, and in good faith, that he had been
divorced from his first wife. He was, nevertheless, convicted and his conviction was affirmed on
appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that there was not sufficient evidence that Wheat has
reasonable ground for believing that he had been divorced, but the Judgment proceeds to declare in
general terms that a reasonable belief that his first marriage has been dissolved is no defence to the
charge of bigamy.

It is submitted that the two cases are perfectly reconcilable. In Tolson's case the accused's mistake
was one of fact and in Wheat's case the mistake was the mistake of law, and therefore, he was guilty
of an offence. Mrs. Tolson did not intend to do the act forbidden by the statute, i.e., to marry another
during the former husband's life where as Wheat did.

In the case of Brend v. Wood [(1946) 62 TLR 462] it was finally held that the principle of mens rea
is applicable not only to common law offences but to all the statutory offences also. It was held by
Lord Goddard C.J.:

"The general rule applicable to criminal cases is actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. It
is of utmost importance for the protection of liberty of the subject that a Court should always bear in
mind, that unless a statute, either expressly or by necessary implications, rules out mens rea as a
constituent part of the crime, the Court should not find a man guilty of an offence against the
criminal law unless he has guilty mind."

IV. Mens Rea and Indian Penal Code:

J.D. Mayne, Ratan Lal Dheeraj Lal and various other authors have taken the view that the common
law docrine of mens rea has no general application in India. Mayne observed
"Under the Penal Code such a doctrine of mens rea is wholly out of place. Every offence is defined
and the definition states not only what the accused must have done, but the state of his mind with
regard to the act when he was doing it."
The word mens rea has nowhere been used in the

IPC but it has been applied in the following two ways:

i. While defining offences, words used indicate actual criminal intent required for the offence The
expressions fraudulently, dishonestly, voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally, etc. used in the
definitions indicate the criminal intent. No such words have, however, been used in case of
offences which can not be committed by innocent persons. In those offences criminal intent is
presumed. Such offences are Waging war against Government (Sec. 121), Sedition (Sec. 124-A)
and Counterfeiting of Coins (Sec. 232), etc.

ii. The IPC contains a separate chapter on General Exceptions (Sections. 76-106) which indicate the
circumstances where absence of criminal intent is presumed. This is negative method of applying
the principle of mens rea in IPC.

Thus, though the word mens rea as such is nowhere found in the IPC, its essence is reflected in
almost all the provisions of the Penal Code. Every offence created under IPC rts the idea of criminal
intent or mens rea in some form or other.doctrine of mens rea has been applied by the Courts in
India and it is now firmly diner or cnat mens rea is an essential ingredients of offences.

In the case of R. Hariprasada Rao v. State [(1951) SCR 322] the Supreme Court ruled that unless a
statute either clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent element of
crime, a person should not be found guilty of an offence, unless he had a guilty mind at the time of
commission of the offence. The Apex Court reiterated the same principle in the case of State of
Maharashtra v. M.H. George (AIR 1965 SC 722).

This question was once again agitated before the Supreme Court in the case of Nathu Lal v. State of
M.P. (AIR 1966 SC 43). In this case the accused, a food grain dealer, applied for a licence and
deposited the requisite licence fee. He, without knowledge of rejection of his application, purchased
food grains and sent returns to the licensing authority who on checking found that it was in excess
of the quantity permitted by Sec. 7 of M.P. Food Grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1958. The
accused was prosecuted but acquitted on the ground that he had no guilty mind. The Supreme Court
observed: "The accused was under a bona fide impression that the licence in regard to which he had
made an application was issued to him though not actually sent to him. The fact that the licensing
authority did not communicate to him the rejection of his application, confirmed the accused's
belief. It was on that belief that he stored the food grains and was sending returns to the concerned
authorities. He could not, therefore, be said to have intentionally contravened the statutory
provisions."
V. Exceptions to the Principle of Mens Rea:

There are certain exceptional cases in which mens rea is not required to be proved, these exceptions
are:
Least the sate orthe onle e stiha phe statute ise. For ex the offence of waging war ii. All offences
relating to public nuisance, private libel and contempt of court. mote fee in ga chiraugh the
proceding is criminal in form, but it is only a summary

VI. Actus Reus:

It is the third essential element of crime. A human being and evil intent are not enough to constitute
a crime for you cannot know the intentions of a man. The thought of a man is not triable. The
criminal intent in order to be punishable must become manifest in some voluntary act or omission.
In other words, some overt act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the guilty
intention. Actus reus is commonly defined as a criminal act that was the result of voluntary bodily
movement. This describes a physical activity that harms another person or damages property.

Anything from a physical assault or murder to the destruction of public property would qualify as
an actus reus.

Prof. Kenny defined the term acut reus as "Such result of human conduct as the law seeks to
prevent." The act done or omitted must be an act forbidden or commanded by some law. Russel
calls actus reus as the 'physical result of human conduct'. When criminal policy regards such act as
sufficiently harmful, the commission of the act is prohibited on pain of punishment.

Omission, as an act of criminal negligence, is another form of actus reus. In other word, an act
includes illegal omission also. A man is held liable if some duty is cast upon him by law and he
omits to discharge that duty.

Conclusion
Mens rea and actus reus are two fundamental elements of criminal law applied in most countries.
Mens rea refers to a mental condition in which a person intentionally breaks the law. As a result,
mens rea denotes the intention to commit the illegal act. An act must be conducted with a guilty
conscience to be considered a crime. We can say that mens rea means “guilty mind.” On the other
hand, the actus reus means “guilty act.” It is a requirement in showing that a criminal act was
performed. Certain standards must be observed while dealing with any crime, and the accused
person is given “the benefit of the doubt.” The prosecution has the burden of proving his or her guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.At the end we can say that physical element, i.e. actus reus and mental
element, i.e. mens rea, are the two tests of criminality known to our law which is based on English
law. It is the fundamental principle of criminal liability that there must be a wrongful act (actus
reus),

References
(i) Books:-
 1. S.N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code, Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 20th Edition
(2016)

2. O.P. Shrivastave, Principles of Criminal Law, Eatern Book Company, Lucknow, 6th
Edition (2016)

3. P.S.A. Pillai, Criminal Law, LexisNexis Butterworths, 12th Edition (2014)

4. Bare Act- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (ii) Links:-

(i) http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/the-elements-and-stages-of-a-
crime-1228-1.html

(ii) http://www.lawlessons.ca/lesson-plans/

2.1.definition-and-principles

(iii) http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mens+rea

(iv) http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/mens-rea-in-statutory-offences-831-1.html

(v) http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/132472/7/07_chapter%202.pdf

(vi) http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/actus-reus/