This article has been written by Bidisha Banerjee, a 2nd year BA.LL.B student of Jogesh Chandra Chaudhuri Law College, University of Calcutta.
INTRODUCTION
Since the dawn of European civilization, the notion of expiation has been in existence. And, it was seen that oftentimes suffering was inflicted upon persons, who would rather be regarded as innocent as per modern standard. This was done in order to appease a supposed anger of some divinity. It is believed that the instinct of self preservation, which urges someone to fight back when threatened or hurt, has laid down some of the many peculiarities of the ancient criminal law.
English law Good not only would treat animals as tainted with guilt but also insentient objects, like carts, wheels, boats, if it was found to be linked with the death of a man. Known as deodand, the object was to be handed over to the King, who would then direct how the said object were to be handled, in order to appease “God’s wrath”.
There was no legal relevance of the mental attitude of the wrongdoer.A man had to pay for a deed, if it was proved that it was done by him. On the other hand, he had to pay nothing if it could not be proved that it was done by him.
By the 13th century, serious offences, categorised as felonies, like robbery, dacoity, murder, etc had come into existence. Even though the old rule of strict liability still existed, punishment instead of being pecuniary, in many cases have turned into capital(i.e, death sentence).
The 13th century saw a rise in new legal concepts, vis, distinction between crime and tort, and that the defendant is only liable for reasonably foreseeable consequences. There was also the rise of the well-known maxim in criminal law, i.e, actus non facit res, nisi mens sit rea(the act itself does not make a man guilty, unless his intentions were so).
Criminal law is interested with the behaviour of men; therefore the physical element indicated by the word actus (the act done), the deed, must consist of some manifestation of physical behaviour; the mental element indicated by the word mens (mind) must consist of some operation of man’s mental process. In short, there are five main points in the totality of criminal responsibility, viz. (i) human action, or abstention from (conduct) action (which, for the purpose of the present discussion is termed conduct”), (ii) such circumstances as are prohibited by the law, (iii) the result of the conduct in these specified circumstances, (iv) the conduct must be voluntary, and (v) the result must be foreseen.
BODY
Actus Reus can be defined as the act or the omission of an act by the accused, which resulted in harm to the body or the property of a person/ persons. The accused voluntarily does an act or avoids something he is bound to do, which is prohibited by law. According to Kenny, “actus reus is an outcome of human activity that the law aims to prevent.” For example, A shoots Z with the intention to kill him. Z dies as a result.
A is said to commit murder.
There is no way that a man can pursue a line of conduct without producing a continuing series of events, any of which may, or may not, constitute an event forbidden by law. Thus, a man who intends to murder another may lawfully purchase a revolver for the purpose, or he may secretly take and carry away the revolver without the consent of the owner, thus performing the actus reus of theft. He may then break and enter the victim’s dwelling house during the night, thereby performing the actus reus of another crime, v/z., burglary.
However harmful or painful an event may be. it is not an actus reus, unless the law in the particular circumstances of the case has forbidden it to occur. For instance, the duly appointed executioner, who has put to death a convicted criminal in accordance with his sentence, has killed a man with deliberate intent so co do, but he has committed no crime, because the deed was not prohibited but was actually commanded by the law.
Again, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force by any person in order to prevent the commission of a crime by another person, or in the act of one who has committed a crime, does not give rise to criminal liability. For example, a person will not be held liable if he has to use a deadly force to protect himself from a grievous inhurry. Similarly, one law does neither prohibit limited chastisement of a child by a parent or a school teacher, nor the causing of hurt in the course of sports and games, or in the performance of a surgical operation by one duly qualified surgeon. That the deed was not prohibited by law is a complete defence for the man who had done that deed, for although the acti was his, yet in the special circumstances of the case, it was not reus on the other hand.
There is no “reasonable man” test of remoteness of damages for criminal liability as in the case of the law of torts, but this is not needed since the doctrine of mens rea has come to operate as a limitation, constituting as it does a subjective test in the rule thar che prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused foresaw that certain specified harmful consequences would or might result from his conduct.
There are certain cases where actus reus is enough for conviction. No presence of mens rea is required. I.e, strict liability will be applicable. They are as follows:
- Statutory offences of abduction, kidnapping, rape and offences against the State and army, etc.;
- Cases of public nuisance, libel and contempt of court, etc.;
III. Offences created by statutes that are regulatory in nature, in which although the proceedings are criminal, it is really a mode of enforcing a civil right, for example, cases of violation of municipal laws, town planning laws, and trade regulations, etc.;
- Public welfare offences which include socio-economic offences relating to food, drugs, weights and measures, hoarding and black marketing, licensing, revenue, environment pollution and custom offences, etc. Such offences are basically quasi criminal in nature.
The State of Maharashtra v. MH George(1964) is a landmark judgement, wherein the concept of strict liability was adopted over the maxim, actus non facit res, nisi mens sit rea
On November 27, 1962, Mayer Hans George, a German smuggler, flew from Zurich (famous city of Switzerland) to Manila (Capital of Philippines) with 34 kilos of gold concealed on his person. On the 28th, the plane arrived in Bombay, but the respondent did not disembark. The customs authorities searched the plane’s manifest for any gold consigned by any passenger but found none. They boarded the plane, searched the respondent, recovered the gold, and charged him with an offence under Sections 8(1) and 23(1-A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, as well as a Reserve Bank of India notification dated November 8, 1962, which was published in the Gazette of India on November 24.
Several British and Indian cases were examined by the Supreme Court. The purpose of the FERA of 1947 was to combat smuggling. This case is related to the country’s economic situation. As a result, the Supreme Court adopted the strict liability concept rather than the maxim.
REFERENCE
https://legalstudymaterial.com/actus-reus-in-crime/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-you-need-to-know-about-mens-rea/
https://legodesk.com/legopedia/actus-reus-and-mens-rea-indian-perspective/
https://unacademy.com/content/upsc/study-material/law/mens-rea-and-actus-reus/
Textbook on Indian Penal Code by KD Gaur
Aishwarya Says:
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening