This article has been written by Adv. Aniket P. Kamtam, a 2nd Year MBA-LAW Student from SVKM’s NMIMS SBM College, Vile Parle West.

The Latin word for guilty act is ‘Actus Reus’. That means the guilty mind and guilty Act constitutes the crime for conviction by prosecutor. Hence Guilty act is the wrongful deed that comprises the physical components of a crime and that generally must be coupled with mens rea to establish criminal liability. A forbidden act of Actus rea fo theft is the taking of or unlawful control over property without the owner’s consent, also termed as deed of crime or overt act. There has to be a guilty mind and guilty act/deed to lead a person till conviction.

Latin Maxims: 

Actus me invito factus non est meus actus (Latin maxim): An act done by me against my will is not my act.

Actus servi in lis quibus opera ejus communitur adhihita actus domini habetur (Latin maxim): The act of a servent in those things in which he is usually employed is considered the act of his master. 

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (maxim): The act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so. Hence an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also guilty. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, the act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intent. An act is not a crime unless it is committed with a particular criminal intention (mens rea). What constitutes the mens rea is laid down in the case of offence defined in the indian penal code, 1860. 

Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea: An act does not make a person guilty of his crime unless his mind also be guilty. 

“The word actus connotes a ‘deed,’ a physical result of human conduct. When criminal policy regards such a deed as sufficiently harmful it prohibits it and seeks to prevent its occurrence by imposing a penalty for its commission. It has long been the custom of lawyers to describe a deed so prohibited by law in the words actus reus. Thus actus reus may be defined as ‘Such result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent.’ It is important to note that the actus reus, which is the result of conduct, and therefore an event, must be distinguished from the conduct which produced the result. For example, in a simple case of murder it is the victim’s death (brought about by the conduct of the murderer) which is the actus reus; the mens rea is the murderer’s intention to cause that death. In other words, the crime is constituted by the event, and not by the activity (or in certain cases, as we shall see, by the omission to act) which caused the event.” J.W. Cecil Turner2, Kenny’s Outlines of Criminal Law3 13 (16th ed. 1952). 

4Kenny in his ‘Outlines of Criminal Law’ defined “attempt” to commit a crime as the “last proximate act which a person does towards the commission of an offence, the consummation of the offence being hindered by circumstances beyond his control.” This definition is too narrow. What constitutes an “attempt” is a mixed question of law and fact, depending largely on the circumstances of the particular case. “Attempt” defies a precise and exact definition. Broadly speaking, all crimes which consist of the commission of affirmative acts are preceded by some covert or overt conduct which may be divided into three stages. The first stage exists when the culprit first entertains the idea or intention to commit an offence. In the second stage, he makes preparations to commit it. The third stage is reached when the culprit takes deliberate overt steps to commit the offence. Such overt act or step in order to be ‘criminal’ need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of the offence. It is sufficient if such act or acts were deliberately done, and manifest a clear intention to commit the offence aimed, being reasonably proximate to the consummation of the offence. As pointed out in Abhavanand Mishra v. State of Bihar5, there is a distinction between ‘preparation’ and ‘attempt’. Attempt begins where preparation ends. In sum, a person commits the offence of ‘attempt to commit a particular offence’ when (i) he intends to commit that particular offence; and (ii) he, having made preparations and with the intention to commit the offence, does an act towards its commission; such an act need not be the penultimate act towards the commission of that offence but must be an act during the course of committing that offence.

The actus reus of an attempt to commit a specific crime is constituted when the accused does an act which is a step towards the commission of that specific crime, and the doing of such act can have no other purpose than the commission of that specific crime. 

This is the deed or the commission. It is the material result of the conduct of the accused, which the law wants to prevent. In case of murder, it is the victim’s -death by any means that is the actus reus, but mens rea is the intention of the accused. 

The actus reus must have been prohibited to create criminal liability e.g. Harm to the person, destruction of property etc. It is therefore, clear that if killing is authorized e.g. death sentence, there is no murder.

Causation: 6 A man is said to have caused, the actus reus of killing a person, if death would not have occurred without the participation of the accused. 

(i) This participation may be direct i.e., when the accused A kills B

(ii) It is indirect when he instigates another to kill. A secretly puts poison into a drink which A knows that B will offer to C.

(iii) A crime may be committed without physical participation e.g. conspiracy, abetment etc.

(iv) Mens rea in one and actus reus in another is possible. A keeps a goldsmith G, at the point of gun, takes him to a house where G is forced to open the lock which he does. A thereupon takes away the goods, here, G is kept in such a threat to his life that there is no ‘mens rea’ and hence not guilty

1. v) By intervention of a third person, a crime may be committed. E, an engineer, had left his place, by leaving an ignorant boy in charge of an ‘engine. The boy failed to stop the engine properly, and. as a result of that, ‘A‘ a worker died, held, E was liable, the engineer-should have contemplated such a possibility
2. vi) There are also cases where the victim’s own conduct or contributory negligence would result in a crime. These are to be decided with sound reasons. This establishes the rule that both mens rea and actus reus must concur to constitute a crime.

1. AIR 1965 SC 722 (731)
2. https://family-tree.cobboldfht.com/people/view/1160
3. Courtney Stanhope Kenny, FBA (Fellowship of British Academy), L.L.D of Lincoln’s inn, barrister-at-law; Reader in English Law, university of Cambridge was a British jurist, academic and Liberal politician. 
4. State of Maharashtra vs. Mohd. Yakub and Ors. (04.03.1980 – SC): MANU/SC/0239/1980 ; AIR 1980 SC 1111
5. 1961 AIR 1698, 1962 SCR (2) 241

6. https://www.msrlawbooks.in/file/Kenny’s_Criminal_Law.pdf