'The term actus reus, a legal concept originating from Latin, refers to the physical act or behaviour that constitutes a crime. It is an essential aspect in establishing criminal liability, along with mens rea, which pertains to the guilty intention. Essentially, actus reus is any action that violates the law, such as stealing a chocolate bar without paying for it. Without this physical act, a crime cannot be committed. Therefore, actus reus encompasses all actions that contravene the law.

The nature of actus reus may vary depending on the type of offence. For instance, in an assault case, it may involve physically striking someone. In a theft case, it may involve taking something that does not belong to the perpetrator. And in a murder case, it may involve causing someone's death unlawfully. The common denominator is that actus reus always involves some form of forbidden action or conduct.

However, actus reus is not limited to what one does - it also includes what one fails to do, known as omission. For example, if a person witnesses someone drowning in a pool and does not offer assistance, this lack of action may be considered actus reus if the person has a legal duty to act, such as being a lifeguard or having a duty of care.

To summarize, actus reus is the tangible action or behaviour that constitutes a crime. It encompasses a range of behaviours, including both actions and failures to act, that are in violation of the law. Along with mens rea, it is a vital element in establishing criminal responsibility.

Actus reus is a legal term that describes the physical behaviour or conduct that constitutes a criminal offence, regardless of the intention behind it. This implies that even an unintentional act that results in harm to another individual can be considered actus reus if it meets the requirements for criminal responsibility. Nevertheless, the absence of intent may affect the seriousness of the offence or the availability of certain legal defences.

Moreover, actus reus must also meet specific legal requirements that are unique to each crime. These requirements specify which actions or omissions constitute a crime. For example, when an individual steals something, actus reus is present as it involves the action of taking another person's property without permission and having an intention to deprive them of it permanently.

Actus reus, in law, denotes the physical action or behaviour that constitutes a criminal act. The nature of the offence determines the different forms of actus reus. Here are some examples:

• Physical Actions: These are actions performed by an individual that directly contribute to the commission of a crime. In theft, the physical action of taking someone else's property without their permission is considered as the actus reus.
   
• Omissions: In some cases, failing to act when there is a legal duty to do so can also be considered actus reus. For example, if someone has a legal obligation to provide care for a dependent but fails to do so, resulting in harm, their inaction may be considered actus reus.
   
• Possession: In certain crimes, such as drug offences or possession of stolen property, simply having control or possession of the prohibited item can constitute actus reus.
   
• Conduct Crimes: These involve engaging in specific types of behaviour that are prohibited by law, such as driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
   
• Result Crimes: In some instances, the actus reus encompasses not only the action itself but also the resulting harm caused by the action. For example, in murder cases, the actus reus includes both the act of killing someone and the resulting death.
   
• Circumstance Crimes: These crimes involve engaging in certain conduct under particular circumstances. For instance, selling alcohol to a minor involves the actus reus of selling alcohol but also the circumstance of the buyer being underage.

Understanding the specific form of actus reus is crucial in determining whether an action constitutes a criminal offence.

Case Summaries on Actus Reus:

In the 2017 case of Gurubachan Singh v. State of Haryana, the defendant faced charges for culpable homicide not amounting to murder after his tractor-trolley collided with a motorbike, causing the death of the rider. The court concluded that the defendant's careless driving was the actus reus for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This case highlights the principle that negligent actions resulting in death can be considered actus reus in criminal law.

The case of Leicester v. Pearson (1952) involved a car driver who was charged with not yielding to a pedestrian on a zebra crossing. However, he was found not guilty after it was proven that his car had been forced onto the crossing by another vehicle that rear-ended him. In this case there was no actus reus of the offence vis-�-vis the car driver.

In the case of R v. Pittwood (1902), the accused held the position of a gatekeeper at a railroad crossing. During one particular lunch break, the defendant neglected to close the gate (actus reus), allowing vehicles to pass over the railway tracks. This resulted in a collision between a hay cart and a train, resulting in the death of one individual and severe injury to another. Pittwood was found guilty of manslaughter due to his breach of contractual obligation to shut the gate when a train was approaching.

In the case of R v. Quick (1973), the accused, who suffered from diabetes, was accused of assaulting their victim. The attack took place while the accused was experiencing hypoglycaemia, a condition caused by an excess of insulin resulting in low blood sugar levels. The court ruled that the accused should have been found not guilty due to automatism, as their unconscious state was caused by external factors, namely the administration of insulin. In this case actus reus could not be associated with the accused.

In the case of R v. Larsonneur (1933), the accused, a French citizen, lawfully entered the UK with limited permission to remain. However, upon the expiration of this permission, the defendant left England and travelled to the Irish Free State (actus reus) instead of returning to France. The Irish authorities subsequently issued a deportation order against her, leading to her forcible removal from Ireland and return to the UK.

Upon her arrival in England, she was charged under the Aliens Order 1920 for being present in the country without permission. Despite her argument that her return to the UK was not of her own volition as she was taken there by immigration officials against her will, the defendant was convicted. Her appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, who upheld her conviction on the basis that the prosecution had established all necessary elements for a guilty verdict.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, actus reus refers to the physical action or conduct that makes up a crime. It includes both voluntary and intentional actions or omissions, and it must adhere to the specific legal requirements for each crime. Understanding actus reus is crucial in determining whether an individual has committed a crime and is crucial for maintaining justice in society.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565

Also Read:

• Definition Of Crime And Elements Of Crime: Actus Reus And Mens Rea
• IPC 1860 General Principals Of Criminal Liability: Actus Reus And Mens Rea