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.

Mens rea is a Latin legal maxim, which means “The Guilty mind”. 

Let’s look learn in depth. What is guilty mind? The state of mind which the prosecution must prove a defendant to have had at the time of committing a crime in order to secure a conviction. 

Mens rea is the element of criminal law. Mens rea is considered as the “guilty intention” and unless it is found that the accused had the guilty intention to commit the crime he cannot be guilty of committing the crime. 

Mens rea focuses on the mental state of the accused and requires proof of a positive mind such as intent, recklessness or wilful blindness. To form guilty mind as a state of mentality of accused there has to be a knowledge or acknowledge to accuse about culpable; criminal law there has to be a law which states the act as a crime. 

Recklessness can be termed as negligence, negligence is the persons ignorant towards his act which can lead to crime. Wilful blindness is the mistake which can be termed that ignorance of law is not excuse. Hence mistakes are not pardonable.  

In simple manners Mens rea means: the state of mind that the prosecution, to secure a conviction must prove that a defendant had when committing a crime. Mens rea in theft is the intent to deprive the rightful owner of the property. Mens rea is the second of two essential elements of every crime in common law countries, the other element is Actus rea.  

Intention reflects your motive to do or cause to do some culpable crime. Intent is something aimed at or wished as a goal. “Intent, in its legal sense, is quite distinct from motive. It is defined as the purpose to use a particular means to effect a certain result. Motive is the reason which leads the mind to desire that result.” Dodge, J., in Baker v. State, 120 Wis. 135, 145, 97 N.W. 566, 570 (1903). In criminal law, as general rule, to involve guilt, the accused must have done or omitted something contrary to law. It would revolutionize criminal law to say that criminal responsibility for conduct never de- pends on intention. The mere existence of the intention without commission of the act or the commission of the act without the intent, does not, as general rule, constitute crime. In the case of civil wrongs, on the contrary, the general rule is that the motive of the defendant in breaking a contract or committing a tort, is immaterial on the question of legal liability.

Every sane person of the age of discretion is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his own acts. Every actual consequence is a natural and probable consequence unless and until the contrary is affirmatively shown. 

Intention is the result of working of the brain, and can be gathered from judging the act and the circumstances under which it was done. Intention must be gathered from words used by the accused. If the natural and inevitable consequence of such words is hatred or disaffection the intention must be presumed. The word “intention” means that the act intended is in the future and the law makes relevant statements made by a conspirator with reference to the future. The words ‘in reference to their common intention’ mean in reference to what at the time of the statement was intended in the future.

“The general presumption is that the parties have expressed every material term which they in- tended should govern their agreement, whether oral or in writing. But it is well recognized that there may be cases where obviously some term must be implied if the intention of the parties is not to be defeated. The implications must arise inevitably to give effect to the intention of the parties.

Instances where mens rea is not required. Like in the special statutory offences example Prevention of Money Laundering, act there is no need to have a guilty mind of the offender just his act (Actues Rea) is sufficient for the court of law to convict the person. But while deciding the quantum of punishment mens rea as an element for the Special court judges can play a vital role. There may happened that the accused has no wrong full gains from laundering of money but his ignorance lead him to conviction. Hence only the Act will suffice but the punishment may vary.

In case of Strict liability also the intent of the offender is irrelevant. A person is responsible for accidental harm, without taking into consideration his wrongful intent.

In case of a crime committed by the insane person the mens rea is not taken into consideration. The evidence, that the accused is insane means relatively unsound and unhealthy mind. It can also be happened that the person is sane but was partially insane at the time of act1.  In Prakash Nayi Sen vs State of Goa2 on 12 January 2023 Supreme Court, “The burden of proof does lie on the accused to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that one is insane while doing the act prohibited by law. Such a burden gets discharged based on a prima facie case and reasonable materials produced on his behalf. The extent of probability is one of preponderance. This is for the reason that a person of unsound mind is not expected to prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt”. 

Case laws: 

1. D.R. Thakur v. State of Chhattisgarh, Citation: MANU/CG/0253/2023.

In this case the High court of Chhattisgarh has Quashes Proceedings against Tahsildar for Giving ‘False Evidence’ In Trial Court, because tahsildar has no intent to have a wrongful gain by giving false evidence under Section 344 of the CrPC. 

2. Under Section – 154A of Indian Penal Code mens rea is a necessary ingredient for the offence.3 publication of the words or representation is not necessary under Section 153A of IPC. 
3. The intention to cause disorder or incite people to violence is the sine qua non of the offence under Section 153-A IPC said by the Justice Sandeep Moudgil 4
4. Securities and Exchange Board of India v. Abhijit Rajan  [Civil Appeal No. 563 of 2020; MANU/SC/1195/2022]  this is the corporate criminal case were the Supreme court of India interpreted the motive of the trader or Investor under securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992 . This is one of the recent classic case which framed this below mentioned questions to test the motive of the offender under SEBI Prohibition of Insider Trading) Regulations, 1992.

“To find out if a person is guilty, the Court should address itself to the following questions namely, (i) is he an insider?; (ii) did he possess or have access to any information relating to the company?; (iii) whether such information was price sensitive?; (iv) whether the information was unpublished?; and (v) whether he dealt in securities by subscribing, buying, selling or agreeing to do any of these things in any securities?” 

Reference: 

1. Section 33 of IPC.
2. CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 1849 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 2010 OF 2010
3. Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 7 Supreme Today 127.   
4. Karamjit Singh Gill v. State of Punjab CRM-M-45796-2022 (O&M); (13.12.2022 – PHHC): MANU/PH/2801/2022