Skip to main content

Legal Maxim of 'Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea'

 Legal Maxim of ‘Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea’ 

By Shweta Nair


Meaning

An Act by itself does not amount to a crime unless it is accompanied by a guilty mind. 

A crime consists of 2 elements: 

Actus Reus i.e., Physical Element

Mens Rea i.e., Mental Element.

An act is the event subject to the control of human will. 

There are three aspects of an act: 

  1. Origin- Example: Firing from the bullet. 

  2. Circumstances- Example: Presence of the victim in the shooting range. 

  3. Consequences- Example: Victim dying. 


  • Actus Reus


Actus Reus may be defined as such result of human conduct which the law seeks to prevent. 


  • Characteristics of Actus Reus: 


  • It is the result and not the conduct of an act. 

  • It must be the result of a voluntarily conscious act. 

  • Actus must be Reus i.e., prohibited by law. 

  • It must be an act of the accused. 

  • There must be a casual connection between the act and the harm which is forbidden by law. 


Case- R v. Jordan 

A stabbed B in the abdomen. B was promptly taken to the hospital and treated. The wound was almost killed but then B died subsequently. The court held that A was not responsible for B’s death as there is no casual connection between the act and the harm caused. 


  • It may be the result of a positive or a negative act. 


Case- Commonwealth v. Cali 

A’s property accidently caught fire. A knowingly refrained from extinguishing the fire as he had insured his property. The whole building was destroyed. A was held guilty even for his negative act. 


  • Mens Rea- Mental Element 

It is also known as guilty mind. 

Mental Elements which are necessary for a particular crime are: 


  • Intention

Intention is for the knowledge of the act coupled with the desire of it. Person has the desire and foresight of the circumstances of the act. It is something that is internal, it goes on in the mind of the person. It is directly related to the act. 


  • Motive

Motive is indirectly related to the act. It is an ulterior state of the person’s mind. If a person does an unlawful act, however his motive is, he will be held liable. The criminal liability of the accused is determined by taking into account his intention and not motive. Motive may be taken into account while determining the extent of punishment.


  • Knowledge

Knowledge is merely the awareness, the foresight or expectation of the consequences of ana ct. Here, it will be taken to mean that the person’s mental condition is proper since he knows the consequences of his act. 


  • Negligence

Negligence means a breach of a legal duty to take care. The standard of care accepted by law is the standard of a reasonable man which ordinarily regulated the conduct of human affairs i.e., doing something which a reasonable person would not do or failing to do an act which a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances. 


Exceptions to the maxim: 


  1. Strict Liability- Under certain statutory offences, the requirement of Mens rea is specifically dispensed with and strict liability is imposed for an act in the interest of public safety and social welfare, irrespective of the state of doer’s mind. 

  2. Petty Offences- In case of petty offences, as it is difficult to prove Mens Rea, the statue has dispensed with Mens Rea on the ground of speedy disposal of cases. 

  3. Mistake of Law- This is based on the maxim- ‘Ignorance of Law is no excuse’. A mistake or ignorance of law cannot be an excuse for committing a crime. A person may earnestly believe that a particular act is not an offence but in reality, if it is an offence, then ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. 

  4. Per se wrongful act- When an act is apparently wrongful in itself, a wrongful belief in the existence of circumstances which would negative the liability is not an excuse. 

  5. Public Nuisance- An act of public nuisance is an obstruction to the public convenience or is a danger to the public health and safety. Strict Liability is imposed in case of public nuisance irrespective of whether the person intended it or not. 

  6. Cases which are criminal in form but civil in substance- There are several cases which are criminal only in form but in substance, they are a summary mode of enforcing civil rights. 


  • Criticism: 

Sir James Stephen, he criticizes this doctrine of Mens Rea as unnecessary and misleading. The doctrine originated when the various offences were not well0defined but now we have a set of well-defined offences and therefore, the doctrine of Mens Rea is unnecessary and confusing. The doctrine is misleading because it suggests that apart from all particular definitions of crime, such a thing exists as Mena Rea or guilty mind which is not true. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more