Skip to main content

Meaning of Crime under Indian Penal Code

 Meaning of Crime under Indian Penal Code

By Shweta Nair


The Indian Penal Code is the official criminal code of India. It owes its origin to Jeremy Bentham who gave the meaning of crime under IPC and came into force on 1st January, 1862. It consists of 23 chapters and 511 sections. In Criminal Administration of Justice, the focus of attention is entirely upon the wrong doer. The law tries to use the wrongful act in question as an X- ray to look into the mind of wrong-doer and to accordingly meet out punishment. The society considers crimes to be much more harmful, serious and grave than civil wrongs. This is because conviction is a resultant outcome of being found guilty of having committed a crime. 

The question of ‘What is a crime in our criminal jurisprudence’ is answered by the Latin maxim ‘Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea’ which means ‘No act is an offence unless it is accompanied by an evil intention’. The act by itself does not constitute guilt unless it is done with a guilty intent. For an act to be illegal, the person should do it with a guilty mind for conviction requires proof of a criminal act as well as intent. 

Therefore, it has to be noted that every offence has to have a physical element (Actus Reus) and a mental element (Mens Rea). 

Therefore, offence = Actus Reus + Mens Rea

Crime = Wrongful Act + Evil Intention 

Both these ingredients are essential components of a crime. 

Therefore, they have to be present together in order that the accused is found to be culpable. 

The highest degree of evil intention in a person’s mind would not be punishable if it does not transcend into a wrongful act. Similarly, a wrongful act by itself is not culpable unless it is driven by an evil intention however it is only when an objectionable act is committed that the matter comes before us thereafter it is the presence of Mens Rea and the degree thereof which will determine whether or not the said act would be considered to be a crime and if so, what would be the punishment prescribed. Therefore, the concept of Mens Rea becomes supremely important. 

However, Mens Rea is not to be narrowly interpreted to mean evil intention. In the case Chisholm v. Doulton, Judge Cave has aptly stated that the term ‘Mens Rea’ should be interpreted to mean ‘A Blameworthy condition of mind’. Therefore, acts of rashness, negligence, carelessness etc. also falls within the purview of Mens Rea. 

The Indian Penal Code used many different words other than intention such as knowledge, negligently, dishonestly, fraudulently etc. 

It is also to be noted that there are few offences in the IPC and in Criminal Law which are made an exception to the doctrine of Mens Rea. For example, 

  • Kidnapping, Statutory Rape- Here, the law seeks to protect a certain class of people that is young children with impressionable age. Since, they have not developed maturity of understanding what is not good for them. Hence, the act itself when done with respect to such person is punishable. 

  • Offences of Strict Liability- Such as possession of illegal arms, waging war against the state etc. do not require proof of Mens Rea. 

  • Petty Offences where it would be difficult to prove intent such as Violation of traffic rules, no parking, public nuisance etc. 


Having appreciated that Mens Rea i.e., the state of mind behind the act is the most important component of the crime. The question arises that ‘how then does the law determine the existence of Mens Rea and the intensity thereof’. An unknown element is often equated with the known factor in order to gain an insight into its meaning and dimensions. For example, if one does not know what is a yen? (Japanese Currency) and if he is told that one yen is equal to .70 Indian Rupees then he may get a fair idea of what a yen is. Similarly, in the absence of any known scientific method for determining the Mens Rea behind an act. The law equates it with the known element of ‘Facts and Circumstances’ of the case. But before considering the facts and circumstances, the law equips itself with the presumption that every person is presumed to know and intend the normal and natural consequences of his act. 


Thereafter, by a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the judge arrives at an informed decision as to the presence and degree of Mens Rea behind the act. 

For example, given a case of Murder, the facts that might be considered are: 


  • Nature of the weapon used.

  • Part of the body too and number of blows inflicted. 

  • Time and Place of the occurrence. 

  • Relationship between the parties. 

  • Background of the Offender. 

  • Conduct of the accused before and after the occurrence etc. 


After carefully perusing all such known facts, the judge is able to gauge the Mens Rea and the consequent culpability. 
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