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

Mens rea refers to some blameworthy mental condition. It can be constituted by intention, knowledge or something otherwise. No act can be considered criminal per se, unless the act is carried out with a guilty mind. 

Two tests were developed in determining mens rea:

1. Whether the act in question was done voluntarily by the accused
2. Whether the accused was aware of the consequences of the act he had carried out. As said by Lord Atkin, “a man is presumed to intend the necessary or the natural and probable consequences of his act, and this presumption will prevail, unless from the consideration of all the evidence, the court entertains a reasonable doubt whether such intention existed or not”. 

For example, if a man throws a boy from a tower or chops off his head, it is apparent that he intended to kill the boy and had foreseen the consequences of his action. 

No single state of mind is a prerequisite of all the crimes. In fact, mens rea actually adopts different colours in different surroundings. For example, in a murder, the intention is to cause death. In theft, it is to steal. In rape, it is to forcibly causing a woman to cohabit, without her consent. 

While some crimes require intention and nothing else, most crimes can be committed either intentionally or recklessly. Some others require a particular kind of intention or knowledge. Outside the class of crimes requiring mens rea, there exist some acts that require no particular state of mind but do require negligence. For instance, causing death of a pedestrian by negligent driving a vehicle or causing death of a patient by gross negligence by a doctor is an offence punishable under section 304A, IPC. 

Intention and Motive

To look further into the matter, intention must be differentiated from motive. Motive is the reason or ground of an action. Intention is the volition or the active desire to carry out an act. In other words, motive is the end goal and intention is the willingness to do a certain act, which is to achieve a goal, ie, a motive. An act will remain unlawful irrespective of the motive. For example, if a person steals food in order to feed his starving family, he will be considered to commit theft. Here, the person’s motive, or end-goal, was good, which is to feed his starving family. But he had to feed his family by committing theft, ie, it was his intention to commit theft, an unlawful activity, to feed his family. 

In Om Prakash v. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2003, it was held that the motive of a crime is not necessary for conviction. The court turned down the plea of absence of motive for the commission of the crime wherein the guilt of the accused is proved otherwise. The accused, a domestic servant mercilessly in a cruel manner murdered three out of four of the members of the family and grievously injured the fourth. Since the manner of the killing of the three deceased and injuring the survivor of the members of the house-hold, where the accused was working for a number of years was of such a ghastly and cruel nature that shocked the conscience of the society, the Supreme Court held death penalty is the appropriate sentence being a case of rarest of rare nature. The court rightly observed that failure to prove motive is irrelevant in a case wherein the guilt of the accused is proved beyond comprehension otherwise. 

MENS REA IN THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

There is no general application of the doctrine of mens rea in the Indian Penal Code, unlike its uncodified counterpart, ie, the common law.  However this doctrine has been incorporated in the Penal Code by the following two ways:

1.  The provisions as to the state of mind required for a particular offence have been added in the sections itself by using such words as intentionally, knowingly, voluntarily, fraudulently and dishonestly, etc., depending on the gravity of the offence concerned. That is to say, every offence under the Penal Code virtually imports the ideas of mens rea.

2. The concept of mens rea has been incorporated into the provisions relating to the “General Exceptions” contained in Chapter IV of the Code. 

And in places where the legislature has omitted to lay down a particular state of mind as an essential ingredient of an offence under the Code, it is presumed that such an omission is deliberate and in such a case the doctrine of mens rea will not apply. 

Cases to which the doctrine of mens rea does not apply are as follows.: 

1. Statutory offences of abduction, kidnapping, rape and offences against the State and army, etc.;

2. 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.; 

1. 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.

REFERENCES

Textbook on Indian Penal Code by KD Gaur