The article written by Ms Alka Bano is a legal practitioner in the Central Bar Association of Varanasi. I had completed my graduation in B.COM LL.B from Mahatma Gandhi Kasi Vidyapith and LL.M from National Law University, Jodhpur.

INTRODUCTION

The Latin expression actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea  is the fundamental doctrine in criminal jurisprudence which means a person cannot be held accountable for a crime unless there is evidence of culpable intention. In simpler terms, it implies that for establishing criminal liability, it is imperative to prove both the physical act (actus reus) and the mental element (mens rea).This indicates that in order to establish criminal guilt, it is necessary to show both the presence of the actus reus and the mens reus as well as the consistency or compatibility of the mens rea with the conduct that caused the actus reus.

The doctrine appropriately reflects under section 14 of Indian evidence act which says that any evidence demonstrating the presence of any mental condition, such as purpose, cognition, sincerity, carelessness, recklessness, malice or benevolence towards any specific individual, or demonstrating the existence of any physical condition or bodily feeling, are significant, when the existence of any such mental or physical condition or bodily feeling is in issue or relevant in the form facts.In order to establish the accused’s guilt, it must be proven that the prohibited act was committed with the intention of the accused.

In landmark case C.K. Jaffer Sharief v. State (CBI), 2012 the Supreme Court held that If the law is violated, the person’s criminal liability will be punished. However, this rule is not absolute and is limited by the Latin maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.  In other words, you can’t commit a crime if you don’t have criminal cognizance. In order to hold a person criminally responsible, it is necessary to prove that the person’s actions resulted in unlawful acts or omission and that those acts or omissions were accompanied by criminally responsible attitudes. 

Therefore, any crime includes her two elements are:

A physical and a mental component called actus reus and mens reus respectively. 

EXCEPTION

In certain circumstances, the law can establish offences predicated solely on the physical act, disregarding the “ state of mind ” of the person committing the crime. 

The Supreme Court has highlighted the significance of Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea in relation to Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). In the case of Siddhapal Kamala Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, the court opined that Section 84 embodies the fundamental maxim of criminal law. A similar observation was made in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, where the court emphasised that both intention and action are integral to the commission of a crime, as stated in actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. 

1. The court further emphasised that individuals of sound mind are expected to possess a certain level of reasoning ability and are accountable for their actions unless proven otherwise. Individuals with unsound minds or mental disorders lack this basic norm of human behaviour.These situations are also subject to discipline and are considered exceptions to the general principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. In simpler terms, a crime in which mens rea is not a necessary demand is an exception to this rule.

1. In the case of Ranjit D. Udeshi. the State of Maharashtra( 1964), the Supreme Court of India states “we refuse to acknowledge the idea that the prosecution must prove the knowledge of obscenity in an individual who vends or possesses any obscene item for sale, prior to being pronounced guilty.” Consequently, the mental element of the crime is of lesser importance than the act itself. If an individual is found in possession of obscene material, they will be charged under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, regardless of whether or not they were aware of its obscenity or had any intention to possess it.

1. Minor crimes or Petty Offences are the least severe category of criminal acts. Demonstrating the mens rea for actions like disregarding a red traffic signal may pose a difficulty. Consequently, in such cases, violations such as running a red light may be deemed illegal. Therefore, it is an exception from the standard principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.

1. A strict liability crime is one in which the prosecutor does not have to prove that the defendant acted with criminal intent because the defendant’s actions are sufficient to prove the crime. Any activities that fall into these categories are unlawful and harmful for both the public and governments. For example, Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code of 1860 defines rape as sexual intercourse without consent. A mens rea is not required in this case, but the physical act alone is sufficient to convict under this rule.

1. The term“vicarious responsibility”refers to a situation in which the master is held responsible for the actions of the servant in the course of an employment. According to the maxim, this general rule becomes an exception if the servant commits a crime without the master’s knowledge. In such cases, the master cannot be held responsible for the mental state of the servant.

That  means mens rea is immaterial in vicarious liabilities This conclusion reached in the landmark case of Chisholm v.v. Doulton (1889).

1. All citizens or non-citizens are expected to know the laws of the country in which they are staying or visiting and therefore commit criminal offences. Therefore, in such cases, intentional or unintentional acts are disregarded and constitute an exception to the doctrine of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.

In case of M.H George v. State of Maharashtra ignorance of law is excusable if it is a mistake of law committed by foreign country like Germany without an intention to smuggle the gold held to be an excusable defence by the Supreme Court of India.

1. Mens rea absent in Public Nuisance. It is a criminal act or omission that infringe, harm, or cause annoyance to the rights of the general public. 

It can also be defined as any act that affects the general interest of the community or the welfare of the general public. In this case, no-fault liability is imposed when public interest is harmed. Therefore, these crimes are punishable regardless of whether the state of mind is intentional or not.  

CONCLUSION

The doctrine actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea emphasises that both the physical act (actus reus) and the corresponding guilty intent (mens rea) are necessary to establish criminal liability.The primary idea of this doctrine is that an accused person may not be guilty unless the act was done with criminal intent. This maxim aids in our comprehension of the dual roles of actus reus and mens rea in the conviction of the accused, even though there are some situations and concepts, such as vicarious liability,public nuisance, ignorance of law, petty offences and many more exceptions are presents where the “intention” of the wrongdoer is not taken into account.In true sense we can say that this doctrine is intended to protect individuals from wrongful convictions for any acts or omission committed without a criminal intent. The legal system of the doctrines ensures fair, just and reasonable convictions in criminal prosecutions by requiring evidence of both actus reus and mens rea. 

REFERENCES

•  Smith & Hogan, Criminal Law, Butterwoths Publication, (10th ed., 2002).

• Professionals’sThe Indian Evidence Act,(1 of 1872) [Bare Act],(2023).   

•  C.K. Jaffer Sharief v. State (CBI), (2012).

•  Siddhapal Kamala Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal AppealNo. 1602 of 2008.

•  State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram,(2011).

•  Ranjit D. Udeshi. the State of Maharashtra( 1964).

•  K.D. Gaur, Textbook on the Indian Penal Code , 4th ed., Universal Publication. 

•  M.H George v. State of Maharashtra,(1965 SC), https://lawplanet.in/state-of-maharashtra-vs-mh-george-case-summary-1965-sc/ (last accessed on June 12, 2023).