This article has been written by Ms.Haya Khan, a student studying in B.A,LL.B. from Amity University,Kolkata.The author is a 2nd year Law student.
INTRODUCTION
‘Actus reus’ is referred to as ‘guilty act’ and this term was derived from a latin phrase used to describe a criminal act.Actus reus is a criminal act committed as a result of voluntary bodily movement. This term refers to any physical behaviour that causes injury to another person or property. An actus reus could be anything from a physical assault or murder to the destruction of public property.Every crime when occured is distinguished into two parts: the physical act of the crime (actus reus) and the mental purpose to commit the crime (mens rea). To establish actus reus, the defendant must show that the accused party was responsible for a criminal act.
Indian laws,especially Indian penal code has mentioned about Actus Reus.Under section 32 of IPC1860,Actus Reus can also relate to the failure to perform any act or omission that the accused is aware and is compelled to fulfil by duty or law.Under section 39 of IPC1860,Actus Reus must be voluntary.This is founded on the common law principle “actus me invito factus non est mens actus,” which states that “an act done against my will is not my act at all.” If a person’s actions have a likely result as a result of the means, he is held to have voluntarily induced that effect, whether or not he intended to do so.
EXCEPTION TO ACTUS REUS
Actus Reus makes an exemption for involuntary criminal action or omission. It refers to any act or omission committed by a person when asleep or unconscious and unable to comprehend the implications of his actions. Any conduct committed by the person while he was unable to comprehend his acts will not be held accountable.
In many circumstances, the offender would plead that his conduct was not voluntary or that he was not in a position to understand his actions against the victim. In that case, the prosecutor must demonstrate that his behaviour was voluntary and that he was in a state of mind where he could appreciate the consequences of his actions.On numerous occasions, the court has rendered a decision and discharged the defendant who was intoxicated or a drug addict. In one case, the court ruled that a person cannot be arrested and charged only for being a drug addict. According to the court’s decision, being a drug addict is a status, not an action.
Furthermore, in an act of omission, if a person with a legal duty to save a drowning child is unable to swim due to a significant injury to his body, he cannot be held accountable for the act of omission since he was unable to discharge his duty.
ACTUS REUS AS OMISSION
According to the definition of Actus Reus, the omission of an act might also be termed Actus Reus. This indicates that inaction can potentially become Actus Reus.
To better comprehend both views, consider the following scenario: Amit forcibly seized B’s automobile and fled. In this case, Amit’s use of force against B is the Actus Reus, and he committed a crime by stealing B’s car. Amit performed a bodily act in the scenario.
‘A’ works as a lifeguard at a pool, and it is his responsibility to rescue people from the pool. He is assigned to sit by the pool in the morning. A boy begins to drown in the pool and seeks A’s assistance. But because Amit did not assist that youngster, he drowned in the pool. A did nothing here, but he will be held responsible for the death of that youngster because it was his responsibility to save him. He committed the act of omission.
But in this case, ‘A’ is a good swimmer. However, he is not a Lifeguard, and it is not his responsibility to save anyone from drowning in the pool. Now, a boy was drowning in the sea and pleading for aid. ‘A’ witnessed the youngster drowning in the water but did nothing to save him, and the boy perished in the pool. Even if ‘A’ did wrong morally, he will not be punished legally for the omission of his conduct because it was not his obligation to save the youngster.
ACT OF OMISSION UNDER LEGAL DUTY
Only if it was his obligation to do something to save something can the person be prosecuted for the act’s omission. A person’s duty to perform an act must exist.During the trial, the defendant must have established the following facts:
- The defendant had a legal obligation to perform the act.
- The defendant was aware that he had a legal obligation to perform the act.
- The defendant was competent in carrying out his responsibilities.
CASE SUMMARIES ON ACTUS REUS
It was held in this case that, in order to commit an offence under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused must have a mental element, namely mens rea, which can be active or passive, i.e. intention or knowledge, and actus reus, which is an act performed in accordance with such mens rea. To convict the accused under Section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, the court must conclude that the accused had the necessary purpose or knowledge.
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the mere fact that Gayancharan’s injuries from two bullets were harmful to his life was insufficient to find that his death, which occurred three weeks after the occurrence, was caused by his injuries. The court stated that in order to prove Gayancharan’s murder, it must be established that he died as a result of his injuries.
The Supreme Court ruled that for an offence under Section 304A, the simple irrefutable fact that an accused violated specific laws or regulations while doing an act that caused the death of another does not demonstrate that the death was caused by reckless and careless behaviour. Evidence indicated that it was common practice in the corporation to assign the same batch number to different batches manufactured on the same day. The practice was known to the drugs inspector, who did nothing to stop it and instead turned a blind eye to a significant violation of the drug guidelines.To hold the accused accountable for the rule violation would be an attempt to identify a scapegoat for the deaths of twelve people. As a result, the accused’s conviction under Section 304A was reversed.
CONCLUSION
In most nations, actus reus is an essential aspect of criminal law. Mens rea is a mental state in which a person willfully violates the law. Mens rea thus denotes the intention to commit the illicit conduct. To be called a crime, an act must be committed with a guilty conscience. Mens rea can be translated as “guilty mind.” The actus reus, on the other hand, denotes “guilty act.” It is required to demonstrate that a criminal act was committed. When dealing with any crime, certain rules must be followed, and the accused individual is given “the benefit of the doubt.” The prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
A person who has done or neglected an act involuntarily is not punished by the law. Any moral duty cannot hold a person accountable for an act or omission. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty under common law. It is critical to understand the motivation behind a person’s actions before penalising him for the offence brought against him.
REFERENCES
https://legalstudymaterial.com/actus-reus-in-crime/
https://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/criminal-law/actus-reus/