– An article by Lavanya Goinka and Siddharth Sharma
The Latin phrase ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ loosely translates to “an act does not constitute a man guilty of a crime unless his mind is equally culpable.” This means that proving criminal culpability requires not only the presence of the actus reus and the mens rea, but also the mens rea’s coincidence or concurrence with the activity that results in the actus reus. The purpose of this article is to investigate the concerned maxim in relation to Indian criminal legislation.
In the case of C.K. Jaffer Sharief versus State (Thr C.B.I.) (2012), the Supreme Court of India stated that an individual’s criminal culpability would be attached if they broke the law. The rule, on the other hand, is not absolute, and it is limited by the Latin maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. It means that a crime cannot be committed without the presence of a criminal mind. It must be demonstrated that someone’s activities resulted in an illegal act and that their acts were accompanied by a legally blameworthy mental attitude in order to hold them criminally accountable. As a result, each crime includes two elements: a physical component and a mental component, referred to as actus reus and mens rea, respectively.
The Latin maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is derived from mens rea. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea defines the criminal law application of mens rea. It states that a person is only guilty of committing a criminal if their actions are carried out with the intent of committing a crime. This maxim is used to determine whether or not a particular act is prohibited. Crimes committed with a specific aim, as opposed to unintentional or unintended crimes, carry heavier penalties. However, no law infringement may go unpunished.
The roots of this proverb are unknown at this time. Pollock and Maitland traced the earliest and farthest reference to this maxim back to St. Augustine, but they were unable to offer enough context for the maxim they uncovered. Lord Edward Coke later gained this notion from modern religion, and it is now widely applied in the common law. This aphorism can be traced back to St. Augustine’s Sermon 180. St. Augustine examines a case of perjury in the sermon’s body. He tells a storey about a man who was questioned if it rained in a specific location. The man was convinced that it did not rain, but that it was in his best interests to testify that it did.
In the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea has been included in two ways:
The required state of mind (mens rea) is explicitly included in the definition of an offence.
Through the ‘General Exceptions’ listed in Chapter 5 of the Code, some of which negate the presence of mens rea, such as mistake of fact, accident, childhood, and insanity.
Exceptions of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
In some circumstances, the law might create offences based solely on the physical act, disregarding the perpetrator’s “state of mind.” These instances are also punished, and they are treated as exceptions to the general rule of actus non facit reum nisi mens sat rea. A crime for which mens rea is not an essential criteria is, in essence, an exception to this rule.
“We do not accept the notion that the prosecution must demonstrate that the person who sells or keeps for sale any obscene object knows that it is obscene before he can be deemed guilty,” the Supreme Court of India said in the case of Ranjit D. Udeshi v. the State of Maharashtra (1964). As a result, the act performed is more important than the mens rea. If obscene material is found in a person’s possession, he will face charges under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is not essential to demonstrate his intent or knowledge of the obscene material.
· Ignorance of Law
Because every citizen and non-citizen is expected to be familiar with the laws of the country they are in or visiting, ignorance of the law cannot be used as an excuse to commit a crime. As a result, in such cases, the presence or absence of a purpose is ignored, making it an exception to the norm.
The Indian government issued an order on November 24th, 1964, barring gold shipment outside of India in order to save foreign exchange and combat smuggling in the case of the State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1964). On November 27th, the appellant, M.H George, a German national, boarded a plane in Zurich for a trip to Manila. The plane made a stopover in Bombay on November 28th, where he was captured by a customs inspector with 34 kilogrammes of gold. Sections 8 and 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1947 made him responsible. The case was later taken to the Bombay High Court, where he was acquitted since he had just recently been exposed to the law and, as a German national, he was unaware of Indian law and had no intention of smuggling the gold. Even though he had no intention of smuggling the gold, he was found guilty when the case proceeded to the Supreme Court because ignorance of the law could not be used as an excuse.
· Public nuisances
A public nuisance is a crime in which an act or omission obstructs, hurts, or disrupts the right of the general public. It can also be defined as behaviour that puts the general public’s interest or comfort in jeopardy. In such cases, strong accountability is required because the public’s interest is at stake. As a result, whether or not there is a mental motive, these offences are punishable.
· Petty offences
The least serious types of offences are petty offences. When it comes to small offences like running a red light, establishing the mens rea behind the act might be difficult. As a result, conduct like jumping a red light may be regarded criminal in such circumstances. As a result, the general rule of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is broken.
· Strict liability
Strict liability offences are those in which the prosecution does not need to show that the defendant acted in a criminally motivated manner since the defendant’s actions are sufficient to prove the crime. The activities that fit within these categories are harmful to society and the government. Rape, for example, is defined as an act of sexual intercourse without consent under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Even if mens rea is not required in this case, the physical act alone is enough to convict a person under this rule.
· Insanity
A criminal intent cannot be imputed to someone who, due to mental illness or immaturity, is unable to appreciate the nature of his actions or distinguish between good and evil. As a result, the insanity defence is an exception to the general rule of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, enshrines the fundamental principle of criminal law, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.
The Supreme Court of India held in Hari Singh Gond v. the State of M.P. (2008) that Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines the legal criteria for evaluating responsibility in situations of alleged insanity. There is no definition of ‘unsoundness of mind’ in the aforementioned Code. In most cases, the courts have associated this phrase with insanity. The term ‘insanity,’ on the other hand, has no unambiguous definition. It’s a term that’s used to describe different levels of mental disease. As a result, a mentally ill person is not exempt from criminal responsibility.
It’s critical to understand the difference between legal and medical insanity. Legal insanity is dealt with in a court of law, not medical insanity. The accused bears the burden of proof to prove his insanity, which arises under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Crime, 1872, and is less onerous than the prosecution’s burden of proof to prove that the accused committed the act for which he is charged.
In the case of Ram Bahadur Thapa v. the State Of M.P. (2021), the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a person is free from responsibility for an act committed while insane if he or she was insane at the time of the act:
1. Is either deafeningly deafeningly deafening
2. The nature of his behaviour, or the fact that he is engaging in unlawful or criminal behaviour.
The accused is protected not just when he was unable to know the nature of the act due to insanity, but also when he did not realise either that the act was bad or that it was against the law, although knowing the nature of the act itself. He is not protected, however, if he knew what he was doing was unlawful, even if he didn’t realise it was against the law, and also if he knew what he was doing was wrong even if he didn’t realise it was wrong.
· Vicarious liability
The term “vicarious responsibility” describes a circumstance in which the master is held responsible for his servant’s acts while on the job. Under the maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, if the servant has committed a criminal offence without the master’s knowledge, this general rule becomes an exception. In such a case, the master cannot be held responsible for the servant’s mental state. This was the conclusion reached in the well-known case of Chisholm v. Doulton (1889).
Conclusion
In criminal law, the Latin maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea has served as a catalyst. This aphorism encapsulates the basic heart of the criminal justice system. This precept has been reflected in various judgements addressed in this article, not only in criminal statutes but also in their practical application. If this principle had not existed, the criminal justice system would have been rendered ineffective.