Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Concept of Mens Rea (guilty Mind)
List of Sub-Topics:
There is a Latin maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which means an act does not make one guilty unless there is criminal intent. This maxim can be considered as a cardinal rule of criminal law. There are two necessary elements in a crime, namely, a physical element i.e “actus reus” and secondly, a mental element “mens rea”. The actus reus may be an act of omission or an act of commission’ but in order that the actus reus may be punishable, it must jointly be accompanied by a guilty mind i.e. mens rea. The existence of the mental element or guilty mind or the mens rea at the time of the commission of the actus reus or the act alone will make the act of the actor an offence.
Mental Element in Crime:
The state of mind of the accused is relevant in several areas of criminal law. Chapter IV of General Exceptions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 gives provision in which mental state of accused is. The principle behind chapter IV, for General Exceptions, is based upon the Latin maxim, “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea‘ i.e. an act is not criminal unless there is criminal intent. considered.
Plea of Infancy:
Under Section 82 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a child under 7 is never criminally liable. Under Section 83 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, one aged 7-12 is so liable only if he has mischievous discretion.
In Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2005 SC 2731, the Court observed: “mind at that age could not be said to be mature for imputing mens rea as in the case of an adult”.
Plea of Insanity:
Under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the mentally disordered state of mind may be looked at, e.g. in the defences of insanity and diminished responsibility.
In T. N. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 3828 case the Court held that where he lacks mens rea even through insanity, he is entitled to an acquittal”
Act under Free Will?
The principle behind the chapter IV, for General Exceptions is based upon the maxim, “actus non facit reum nisi mens sitred’ i.e. an act is not criminal unless there is criminal intent. At times the state of mind is relevant to the question of voluntariness. Is the accused acting of his own free will?
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Mens Rea:
Mens rea is the state of mind which indicates culpability, which is required by a statute as an element of the crime. As a general rule, every crime requires a mental element i.e. some blameworthy mental condition. Expressions connoting the requirement of blameworthy mind mental element include: “with intent, knowingly, recklessly, unlawfully, maliciously, knowing or believing, fraudulently, dishonestly, corruptly allowing and permitting.”
Mens rea may, however, be direct or implied. Mens rea implies that there must be a state of mind with respect to an actus reus, that is, an intention to act in the prescribed fashion. It is, however, important to distinguish mens rea from motive. Thus, if a person steals away a few loaves of bread from someone’s kitchen to feed a child who is dying of hunger, the motive here may be honourable and understandable, nevertheless, the mens rea being to commit the theft, the person would be convicted for theft. His motive may, however, be taken into account in sentencing and he may be less severely punished because of his good motive. In short, motive should be taken into consideration at the sentencing stage and not at the time of deciding the question of mens rea i.e. during the investigation.
If the offender has been found guilty of wrongful intentions, he shall be prosecuted by the court of law. The absence of guilty intentions may save him from punishment.
In the United States v. Currans 290, F. 2 d 751 (3 rd Cir. 1961) case, Biggs, Chief Justice observed: “The Concept of Mens Rea, guilty mind, is based on the assumption that a person has the capacity to control his behaviour and to choose between alternative courses of conduct. This assumption, though not unquestioned by theologians, philosophers, and scientists, is necessary to maintain and administration of social controls. It is only through this assumption that society has found it possible to impose duties and create liabilities designed to safeguard persons and property… Essentially these duties are intended to operate upon the human capacity for choice and control of conduct so as to inhibit and deter socially harmful conduct. When person possessing capacity for choice and control, nevertheless breaches a duty of this type he is subjected to the sanctions of criminal law.”
In Ganesan v. State, Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 22 of 2011, the Madurai bench of Madras High Court observed that intention is different from motive or ignorance or negligence. Intention requires something more than the mere foresight of the consequences. The intention is a conscious state in which mental faculties aroused into activity and summoned into action for the purpose of achieving the conceived end. Thus in the case of intention, the mental faculties are projected in a set direction.
In Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488 case, the Court observed that ‘Motive’ is something which prompts a man to form an ‘intention’ and a ‘knowledge’ is the awareness of the consequences of the act.
In Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 SC 2420 case the Court observed that sometimes, ‘motive’ being a compelling force to commit a crime becomes a relevant factor.
In State of U.P. v. Arun Kumar Gupta, (2003) 2 SC 20, the Court has categorically declared that proof of ‘motive’ in the absence of the proof of the essential ingredients of the offence would of no avail for convicting the accused.
In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465 at 467 the court was dealing with a case where the accused had thrust a spear into the abdomen of the deceased woman which penetrated deep cutting through the intestine. The court held in the absence of evidence or reasonable explanations, that the person did not intend to stab in the stomach with a degree of force sufficient to penetrate that far into the body or to indicate that his act was a regrettable act and that he intended otherwise, it would be perverse to conclude that he did not intend to inflict the injury that he did. Once that intent was established the rest was a matter for objective determination from the medical and other evidence about the nature and seriousness of the injury. Therefore, whether the intention is there or not is one of fact and not one of law.
In Rawalpenta Venkalu v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 171 case, the Supreme Court observed that the intention to kill the deceased was clear from the fact that the accused took care to lock the door from the outside so that his servant sleeping outside could not be of help to the deceased who had been trapped in his own cottage which was set on fire by the accused. Furthermore, when the villagers were roused from their sleep and tried to proceed towards the cottage which was on fire, they were prevented from rendering any effective help to the helpless deceased, by the use of force against them by the accused. Thus the accused took active steps to prevent the villagers from bringing any succour to the man who was being burnt alive. Thus the intention of the accused to kill the deceased was clear.
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Intention:
“Intention is the result of deliberation upon motive. Intention is a conscious state of mind in which mental faculties are roused in the activity and summoned into action for the deliberate purpose of being directed towards a particular and specified object and which the human mind conceives and perceives before itself, and represents that state of mind of a person in which he not only foresees but also desires the possible consequences of his conduct.
Salmond Explains: “Intention is the purpose or design with which an act is done. It is the fore-knowledge of the act, coupled with the desire of it, such fore-knowledge and desire being the cause of the act, inasmuch as they fulfill themselves through the operation of the will”
According to Salmond intentions are divisible into immediate intentions
and ulterior intentions. The former “relates to the wrongful act itself; the
latter relates to the objects for the sake of which the act is done”
Distinguishing Between Intention and Motive:
| Intention | Motive |
| Intention refers to purposeful action and a conscious decision to perform an act, which is forbidden by law. | Motive alludes to the ulterior cause, which induces a person to do or abstain from doing a particular act. |
| It is the objective of the act | It is the driving force for the act |
| It is expressed | It is implied |
| It is substantial to determine criminal liability. | It is insubstantial to determine criminal liability. |
| With few exceptions, the prosecution in a criminal case must prove that the defendant intended to commit the illegal act. | Proof of motive is not required in criminal prosecution. |
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Knowledge:
To know a thing means to have a mental cognition of it. Knowledge is the awareness of the consequence of an act. A man may be aware of the consequence of an act, though he may not intend to bring them about. Thus a knowledge indicates that the accused is aware of the nature of the act and its probable consequences.
Knowledge and reasonable is purely an operation of the mind and is often difficult to prove. Therefore, it is inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the acts of the person.
In Emperor v. M.T. Dhirajia AIR 1940 All. 486 at p.488. case, bringing out the distinction between ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’ the Allahabad High Court has observed that some degree of ‘knowledge’ must be attributed to every sane person. Obviously, the degree of ‘knowledge’ which any particular person may assume to possess must vary for instance to instance. We cannot attribute the same knowledge to an uneducated as to the educated person. But to some extent knowledge must be attributed to everyone who is of sane mind. However, primitive a man and woman may be and how frightened he or she may be the knowledge of the likely consequence of jumping into the well with a child, as in the instant case, being so eminently dangerous an act must be supposed to have remained with him or her. Knowledge of the consequence that can be attributed to an accused in a given case will depend upon the facts of each case. A blow is not per se and necessarily a fatal act, especially if the blow be given with the fist or one of the less-lethal weapons. This is a question of degree, a question of force, a question of position and so forth and, therefore, in these cases, there is ample room for argument as to whether in any particular case having regard to the manner in which the particular blow or blows in that case was or were delivered, there was behind it the knowledge that it was likely to result in death. The court observed that in Dhirajia’s case the character of the act was fundamentally different. The act of jumping into the well with a six months old baby in one’s arm could, but for a miracle, for only one conclusion that the consequences must have been within her knowledge, but not within her intention. Though she did not intent to kill or cause bodily injury to her daughter but the court held that as a sane person she ought to have known that the act of jumping into the well along with the child was in all probability likely to cause the death of the child and she could not escape the liability under the criminal law even though she had no intention to kill or intention to cause bodily injury to the child.
Distinguishing Between Intention and Knowledge
| Intention | Knowledge |
| Intention is a desire of a conscious mind to commit an act. | Knowledge is a state of mental realisation that causes the mind to receive passive ideas and impressions on it. |
| Intention to commit a crime is seen from the act which a person commits. | In knowledge there is a possible information of the consequences of an act. |
| An intention is considered as a careful action and effort to break the law and commit the criminal offence. | A knowledge may or may not lead us to crime. |
| In intention there is certainty of outcome | In knowledge there is no certainty. |
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Negligence:
A person is said to be negligent when he does not use such care and attention as it was his duty to use. Negligent wrongdoing is that which is not intentional but results from culpable inadvertence or indifference. The mental attitude of the wrong dower consists not in any desire to do harm, but in the absence of a sufficient desire to avoid it. The law is not satisfied with the mere absence of any intention to inflict injury but demands a positive direction of the Will towards the avoidance of it. Thus negligence means the absence of such care as it is legal duty to use. It is the state of mind of a man, who pursues a course of conduct without adverting at all to its consequences. Negligence is used to denote want of care and precaution, which a reasonable man would have taken under the particular circumstances of the case. Criminal negligence will include recklessness and gross negligence.
There is no question of mens rea in civil suits for damages for the injury caused by the negligence of the defendant, but in criminal proceedings, the liability of the accused to punishment depends upon the existence of mens rea.
Under the Indian Penal Code, only a few negligent acts have been made penal, when they affect the safety of the public, such as rash driving or riding on the public road, rash navigation of the vessel, negligently conveying for hire any persons by vessel. In all these are thirteen sections viz: Sections 279, 280, 283, 284, 285; 286, 287, 288, 289, 304A, 336, 337, and 338 which deal with cases of criminal negligence.
Distinguish Between Intention and Negligence:
| Intention | Negligence |
| Intention is a desire of a conscious mind to commit an act. | Negligence is the state of mind of a man, who pursues a course of conduct without adverting at all to its consequences. |
| There is a desire to create harmful consequences. | Negligent wrong doer is careless. |
| The willful wrong doer is liable because he desires to do the harm. | The negligent wrong doer is liable because he does not sufficiently desire to avoid it. |
| What is done intentionally is not done negligently | What is done negligently is not done intentionally |
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Recklessness:
Recklessness is the state of mind of a person, who foresees the possible consequences of his conduct, but acts without any intention or desire to bring them about. It may be that the doer is quiet indifferent to the consequences or that he does not care what happens. In all such cases, the doer is said to be advertently negligent, or reckless towards the consequences of the act in question. It is a lower level of culpability than knowledge. The degree of risk awareness is key to distinguishing a reckless intent crime from a knowing intent crime. The main essentials of recklessness are:
- the defendant must consciously disregard a substantial risk of harm
- the defendant must take an unjustifiable risk.
Distinguish Between Intention and Recklessness:
| Intention | Recklessness |
| Intention is a desire of a conscious mind to commit an act. | Recklessness is the state of mind of a person, who foresees the possible consequences of his conduct, but acts without any intention or desire to bring them about. |
| There is a desire to create harmful consequences. | There is indifference towards consequences of conduct |
| The willful wrong doer is liable because he desires to do the harm. | The reckless wrongdoer is liable for careless behaviour |
| Murder is willful homicide. | death caused by rash or negligent act is culpable homicide |
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Transferred Intent:
When a person intends to commit a particular crime and does an act which would constitute an offence, if directed against the person who actually becomes the victim of his act, he may be convicted notwithstanding that the crime takes effect in a manner which was unintended or unforeseen. This has been treated so on the ground that there is a transferred intention or transfer malice. Transferred intent is only relevant in crimes that require a bad result or victim. In a case where the intent is transferred, the defendant could receive more than one criminal charge, such as a charge for “attempting” to commit a crime against the intended victim.
For instance, A and his friend B get into an argument at a crowded bar. A punches his fist aiming for B’s face. B ducks and A punches C in the face instead. A did not intend to attack C. However, it is unjust to allow this protective action of B’s to excuse A’s conduct. Thus A’s intent to hit B transfers in some jurisdictions over to C. A can also be charged with attempted battery, which is assault, of B, resulting in two crimes rather than one under the transferred intent doctrine.
Click Here to go to Sub-Topic List
Conclusion:
Mens rea is an important element of crime means guilty mind. “Intention” is a state of mind consisting of desire that certain consequences shall follow from the act or illegal omission. “Intention” may be inferred from that act. The presumption relating to “intention” is that every person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act. If the offender has been found guilty of wrongful intentions, he shall be prosecuted by the court of law. The absence of guilty intentions may save him from punishment.