Constituent elements of crime: ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA

Theoretical overview

In most common law nations, the two fundamental elements of any crime are mens rea and Actus Reus. Mens rea is the legal term for the “guilty mind” or guilty intent to conduct a crime, with the express purpose of causing harm to a person or an animal, or to disturb the peace. Yet, Actus Reus is the “guilty act,” which is required to show that a criminal act was performed. There are specific rules that must be observed while dealing with crimes, and the accused is given the benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof rests squarely on the prosecution to establish the defendant’s guilt. Since the principles of justice state that a person cannot be found guilty if the charge against him or her cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense’s objective is to give the judge or jury a reasonable doubt.

Mens Rea

Mens rea is crucial in determining whether or not an act is responsible for the crime. Mens rea shows that the accused had a definite intention to commit the offence for which he is being prosecuted. The accused must be shown to have committed the offence with full knowledge of what they were doing and with malice towards the victim in mind. Mens rea, which requires the defendant to have been aware of the consequences of their conduct for a civil liability to exist, is also employed in some civil lawsuits.

Also, whether an Act was voluntary or not depends on the specific facts of the case. Even though the act of driving while intoxicated was accidental, the person is nonetheless guilty of the offence if he chooses to drink before doing so and unintentionally harms others. Yet, if an otherwise healthy individual has a heart attack and unintentionally hurts someone else while driving, he is not responsible and is not guilty of the crime.

Actus Reus

The physical component of a crime is called Actus Reus. In civil cases, the plaintiff or victim must have suffered harm as a result of the accused’s actions or inactions. There can be no crime and no cause of action for damages without a guilty act. Yet, an act by itself does not constitute a crime; rather, the crime is made up of the act itself and the person’s intention, if the conduct is unlawful. When determining guilt or demonstrating a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s intentions, the facts of the case are sometimes also taken into account. An instance would be bringing a gun into someone’s home with the goal to kill them, or driving at night through dense fog and hitting a pedestrian who was crossing the street erratically.

Actus Reus can also refer to the failure to perform an act when the accused knows he is required to do so by duty or law. For instance, a mother may purposefully fail to feed her infant, which results in the death of the child. If the mother’s purpose to kill her child can be demonstrated in court, she can be prosecuted with murder in addition to causing death by negligence.

How to establish mens rea 

Because that intention is an abstract concept that is challenging to establish, it is challenging to paint a picture of the accuser’s thoughts or intentions at the time of the accusation; instead, surrounding facts or variables are used:

i. Any previous animosity or relationship between the accused and the victim.

ii. The presence of instigation, or whether the accused was employed and the circumstances that led to the crime.

iii. Whether the accused stood to gain anything from the situation.

Hence, a motive or actual causal circumstances always come before a guilty intention.

When Mens rea not required to constitute a crime

• Ignorance of law
• Public nuisance
• Offences related to strict liability and absolute liability
• Offences against the state – waging war and sedition
• Certain offences – kidnapping, adduction, counterfeiting coins

 Important Differences

RELEVANT SECTIONS

Section 39 – it defines voluntarily. A person is said to cause an effect voluntarily when he causes it by means whereby, he intended to cause it

Section 40 – it defines offence. Offence is anything made punishable by the Indian penal code.

Most important case laws

1. R. Hari Prasad Rao v. State – Two people—a master and a servant—were charged with violating the Motor Spirit Rationing Order of 1941 after his servants actually did so. Two gas stations belonged to the master, who entrusted his servant with managing them. In some instances, the servant provided motor spirit without coupons, and in other instances, he obtained advance coupons from automobile owners without providing the spirit, both of which were strictly forbidden. The master cannot be held vicariously accountable in these circumstances, according to the Supreme Court, especially as he was not there when the spirit was delivered. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court maintained the conviction of the master for the servant’s failure to sign the coupons as required by the rules because that law was absolute and made actionable without mens rea.
2.  State of Maharashtra v. M. H. George – It was held that Strict responsibility cannot be implied just because a law addresses a serious societal ill; it must also be determined whether the application of strict liability would help enforce laws. If not, there is no justification for punishing him, and it cannot be assumed that strict responsibility was instituted by the legislature just to identify a hapless victim.

IMPORTANT LEGAL MAXIMS

1. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – It is a well-known maxim in criminal law which means that the act itself, does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so.
2. Ignorantia juris non excusat – ignorance of law is no excuse

IMPORTANT CONCEPTS

Public nuisances 

An act or conduct that impedes, hurts, or otherwise interferes with the right of the general public is referred to as a public nuisance and is a criminal offence. It can also be characterized as behavior that endangers the interests or comfort of the general population. When the public interest is at risk in these situations, stringent responsibility is enforced. So, whether or not there was a mental motive, these offences are punished.

Petty offences 

The least serious type of offence is a petty one. It may be difficult to establish mens rea in cases involving minor offences like running a red light. So, in such circumstances, conduct like running a red light may be seen as criminal. The usual rule of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is thus broken in this instance.

Vicarious liability 

A circumstance in which the master is held accountable for the actions of his servant while performing his duties is referred to as having “vicarious liability.” According to the maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, this general rule becomes an exception if the servant has committed a criminal offence without the master’s knowledge. In such a case, the master shall not be held responsible for the servant’s mental state. This was the conclusion in the renowned case of Chisholm v. Doulton (1889).

POINTS TO REMEMBER

• Mens rea is the ‘guilty mind’ or guilty intention to commit a crime, with the intention of causing hurt to another person, animal, or with the express intention of disturbing the peace. 
• Actus Reus, however, is the “guilty act”, which is a necessity in proving that a criminal act was committed.
• Guilty intention is always preceded by a motive or real causal factors.
• Mental component is necessary for every crime. Even stringent or absolute culpability requires some mental component.
• According to the legal principle, ignorance of the facts is an acceptable defense.
• The existence or absence of a guilty thought is unimportant where a statute mandates strict culpability.