This articles has been written by Ms. Khyati Kanoje, a student studying B.A.LL.B (H.) from Narsee Monjee Institute of Management, NMIMS, Indore. The author is a 3rd year law student. 

In general, a crime consists of several elements that must be present for someone to be convicted of that crime. These elements may vary depending on the specific offense and the jurisdiction in which it occurred.

Human Being

The first requisite is that the wrongdoer be a human being. In this context, “person” does not include inanimate objects or animals.

When the concept of retribution was more central to criminal law in the ancient world, animals were also held accountable for the harm they caused; for instance, a pig was burned in Paris for having consumed a kid and a horse was slain for kicking a man.However, the owner is responsible for any damages caused by their pet under the Indian Penal Code 1860. First and foremost, there must be a “human being” who has committed the crime, who is subject to the law, and who is a suitable subject for the imposition of punishment.

The word “person” under Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code encompasses a business, association, or body of people, whether or not they are incorporated. The term “person” encompasses both natural and legal persons.

Mens Rea

The second necessary ingredient of a crime is mens rea, which can be translated as “evil intent” or “guilty mind,” and which might take the form of a guilty or unjust purpose, a criminal intent, or a knowing and willful disregard for the law.

Towards the end of the common law period in England (about 1600), judges recognized that an act alone could not prove criminal liability without the presence of a guilty frame of mind; this realization led to the development of the notion of mens rea. Different common-law offences needed varying levels of mens rea. For example, while larceny can be committed by anybody, murder requires a particularly nefarious frame of mind.

Motive

What “motive” really means is “why” a criminal act was carried out. The suspect’s past may shed light on his or her possible involvement in the crime. Consider the precedence of intent over motive. While one’s motives can be ascertained, unlike one’s purpose, this fact alone does not prove guilt. Suspects (or “persons of interest” in the criminal justice system parlance) might disprove the claim by providing proof or an alibi. The motivation for an act is important, but it is not sufficient evidence on its own to link an individual to a criminal act.

Intension

The underlying purpose behind a criminal act is known as its “intention.” Since it is the direct effect of a malicious intent, it carries a heavier burden of responsibility for the perpetrator. To have criminal intent is to commit a crime knowingly and with full knowledge that doing so is wrong. The legal concept of intent refers to the forethought and desire to carry out an action. Both criminal law and tort law make use of it. Intention, in its finer sense, describes one’s will or plan. Therefore, when a person acts purposefully, rather than by accident or mistake, it means that they did so with full awareness of the potential outcomes of their actions. Because of this, purpose is the most important factor in determining responsibility.

Difference between Motive and intension:

• Actus Reus

 A criminal act is referred to as an actus reus in Latin. This is the third component of any criminal act. To put it another way, there needs to be an overt conduct or criminal omission in furtherance of the guilty intent.

 The external expression of a person’s mental state, or actus reus. The word “actus reus” was coined by Professor Kenny. “such result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent,” is how he has defined the phrase.

 Actus reus and mens rea are the two components of a crime that must be taken into account together. Actus reus refers to the legal need that an attorney demonstrate that their client committed a criminal conduct.

 The term “actus reus” is used to describe a criminal act that resulted from the use of intentional physical movement. A physical act that causes injury to another person or damage to their property is being described here.

An actus reus could be anything from an attack or murder to vandalism of public property.

Actus reus can also refer to an omission that constitutes criminal negligence. Contrasting with assault and murder, it requires doing nothing that could have stopped another person from being hurt. Forgetting to tell someone else about the danger you’ve created, forgetting to feed a baby who’s been left in your care, or botching a work-related activity that led to an accident all qualify as omissions. All of these crimes were committed because the offender neglected to do anything that was necessary.

Exceptions to mens rea or actus reus

 Mens rea and actus reus are not required when a crime is committed due to involuntary actions. Any behaviour that occurs during a spasm or convulsion, while a person is asleep or unconscious, or while someone is in a hypnotic trance is included in this category. It’s possible that a criminal conduct may occur in these circumstances, but it wouldn’t be premeditated and the perpetrator wouldn’t find out about it until after the fact. The general exemption of mens rea is explained in sections 76-106 of the Indian Penal Code,1980.

• Injury

Fourthly, a crime must do harm, either to another individual or to society as a whole. According to Section 44 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, “injury” is “any harm whatever is illegally caused to any person’s body, mind, reputation, or property.”

Other important elements include:

Concurrence: This element refers to the requirement that the mental state of the defendant (mens rea) and the physical act (actus reus) must occur at the same time. In other words, the defendant must have had the intent to commit the crime at the time they actually committed the act.

For example, let’s say someone throws a rock off a bridge and it lands on a car below, causing damage. If the person didn’t intend to cause harm, but was just throwing the rock for fun, then they wouldn’t be guilty of a crime because the mental state (lack of intent) doesn’t match up with the act (throwing the rock). However, if the person intentionally threw the rock with the intent to cause harm, then they would be guilty of a crime because the mental state (intent) and act (throwing the rock) occurred at the same time.

Causation: This element refers to the requirement that the defendant’s actions must have caused the harm that resulted from the crime. The harm must be a direct result of the defendant’s actions.

For example, let’s say someone is driving a car and they run a red light, causing a collision with another vehicle. If the collision resulted in injuries to the occupants of the other vehicle, then the driver who ran the red light could be held criminally responsible for the harm caused because their actions directly led to the injuries. However, if the occupants of the other vehicle were injured due to a separate cause, such as a defect in their own vehicle, then the driver who ran the red light would not be held criminally responsible because their actions did not directly cause the harm.

Conclusion

 The elements of a crime are a part of the totality of proof required for a criminal conviction. The prosecution must present evidence that is both credible and sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed each element of the specific crime charged before a court can find him or her guilty of that offence.

REFERENCES:

https://www.academia.edu/46962259/Elements_of_Crime

https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Elements-of-Crimes.pdf

https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Elements-of-Crime.pdf