What is meant by Mens Rea? Explain the dictum “Actus Non-Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea”

Question: What is meant by Mens Rea? Explain the dictum “Actus Non-Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea”. How for a motive necessary for determining a crime? Is there any exception to the dictum of Mens Rea? Illustrate your answer. [U.P.C.J. 2016, HR.J.S. 1996, UPHJS 2016, MPHJS 2014]

Or

Mens-rea is an essential element in every crime? Explain this rule and State to what extent it is applicable to the offences under the Indian Penal Code 1860.

Find the answer to the mains question of IPC only on Legal Bites. [What is meant by Mens Rea? Explain the dictum “Actus Non-Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea”.]

Answer

Mens rea, the most essential elements of the crime is derived from the famous maxim Actus Non-Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea. This maxim is divided into two parts. The first part-

1. mens rea (guilty mind);
2. Actus reus ( guilty act ).

It means the guilty intention and guilty Act together constitute a crime. It comes from a maxim that no person can be punished in a proceeding of criminal nature unless it can be shown he has a guilty mind. The second element is Mens rea which can be explained in various forms a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent, guilty knowledge and willfulness all constitute the same thing that mens rea.

These are also the essentials of Mens Rea.

Intent: It is the psychological condition of the individual who perpetrates the wrongdoing. It tends to be demonstrated when the litigant can basically predict that the outcomes of the individual’s activity will execute, cause genuine injury, or some other restricted damage, which is extremely hard to categorise.

Motive: A criminal law intention is a reason that prompts individuals to incite to a specific activity. a fundamental component of the wrongdoing, yet overall it is analyzed during the examination of a criminal case. The rationale is the reason for any demonstration, accordingly regardless of whether the intention was acceptable however the demonstration wasn’t right, the criminal risk may emerge.

The Supreme Court has held in the landmark case of Kartar Singh v. the State of Punjab [1994 SCC (3) 569] that statutory penal provision must be read with the elements of mens rea unless a statute either expressly or by necessary implication rules it out.

In Hyam v. DPP, [[1975] AC 55] D, in order to frighten Mrs booth put burning newspaper in the letterbox of booth house fire spread and two children, died D not meant to kill, but foreseen death or grievous bodily injury as a high probable result D is guilty she knew about the result of her conduct sufficient mens rea for murder. The intention not only means a specific intention but also a generic intention.

Further, in Om Prakash v. Punjab [1961 AIR 1782] the defendant does not give the food to his wife for several weeks and he is now liable for murder because Act must be done with intent or knowledge of the scarcity of food.

---

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams

1. IPC Mains Questions Series Part I: Important Questions
2. IPC Mains Questions Series Part II: Important Questions
3. IPC Mains Questions Series Part III: Important Questions
4. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IV: Important Questions
5. IPC Mains Questions Series Part V: Important Questions
6. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VI: Important Questions
7. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VII: Important Questions
8. IPC Mains Questions Series Part VIII: Important Questions
9. IPC Mains Questions Series Part IX: Important Questions
10. IPC Mains Questions Series Part X: Important Questions