Actus Reus and Mens Rea: Essential Elements of Criminal Liability in Indian Law

Introduction

The fundamental principle of criminal liability is that there must be a wrongful act (actus reus)[1], combined with a wrongful intention (mens rea). This principle is embodied in the maxim, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, meaning an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also guilty.

A mere criminal intention not followed by a prohibited act cannot constitute crime. Similarly, mere actus reus ceases to be a crime as it lacks mens rea. In juristic concept, actus reus represents the physical aspect of crime and mens rea, its mental aspect, which must be criminal and co-operate with the former.

Actus reus has been defined as “such result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent.” Mens rea, which is a technical term generally taken to mean some blameworthy mental condition or “mind at fault”, covers a wide range of mental states and conditions, the existence of which would give a criminal hue to actus reus.

No act is per se criminal; it becomes criminal only when the actor does it with guilty mind. No external conduct, howsoever serious in its consequences, is generally punished unless the prohibited consequence is produced by some wrongful intent, fault or mens rea.

Actus reus means more than just ‘guilty acts’. It also includes a range of other behaviour requirements, defined in each criminal offence. For example, the actus reus of theft is taking someone else’s property, and the actus reus of murder is unlawfully killing another person.

But, as these two examples show, the types of illegal behaviour vary greatly between different types of offence. 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.

No act is per se criminal; it becomes criminal, only when the actor does it with guilty mind. Actus reus connotes an overt act, the physical result of human conduct. It is an event that is distinguished from the conduct which produced the result.

For instance, in a murder case, the victim’s death is the event which is the actus reus. The death or the actus reus was probably caused by the firing of a gun, which is the conduct which produced the result.

Analysing the above-mentioned concept, it is clear that there are two constituent elements of crime—actus reus and mens rea. In other words, the crime is constituted by the event and not by the activity which caused the event. The vicious intention to cause the actus reus, i.e., death, is called mens rea.

Every crime, which is legally specified and involves the defined, generally combined presence of both actus reus and mens rea.

To illustrate this further, let us take an instance of A firing a gun to kill B. While shooting, A holds the gun, places his finger on the trigger and pulls the trigger, as a consequence of which the bullet leaves the gun. In order to constitute an actus reus, there must be the further consequence of the bullet entering B’s body and thereby causing his death.

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.

Definition of Act

In IPC, Sections 32 and 33 define the term ‘act’. (Sections 2(1), 2(25) and 3(4) General explanations of BNS).

Section 32 provides that in every part of the Code except where a contrary intention appears from the context, words, which refer to acts done extend to illegal omissions. (Section 3(4) General explanations of BNS).

Section 33 provides that the word ‘act’ includes a series of acts, and the word omission denotes a series of omissions. (Sections 2(1) and 2(25) of BNS).

A combined effect on these sections is that the term act means one or more acts or one or more illegal omissions. The IPC (Now BNS) makes omissions punishable, provided they are illegal.

Death of a newly born child, for example, may be caused by a deliberate refusal to feed the baby. Here, unlawful homicide—an actus reus—is caused not by any positive act (a deed of commission) but a negative act (an act of omission).

In Om Prakash v. State of Punjab[2], the Supreme Court upheld conviction of the husband for attempting to kill (S.307 IPC) his wife by deliberately failing to give her food.

Section 36 IPC (General Explanations—S. 3(7) BNS) stipulates that where an act or an omission constitutes an offence, the committing of the offence partly by an act and partly by an omission, would also constitute the same offence.

Illustration: A intentionally causes Z’s death, partly by illegally omitting to give Z food, and partly by beating Z. A has committed the offence of murder.

A combined effect of ss 32 and 33 of IPC (Sections 2(1), 2(25) and 3(4) General explanations of BNS) is that the term ‘act’ takes into its fold one or more acts or one or more illegal omissions.

However, an act of omission attracts criminal liability only when a person is placed under a duty to act recognised by criminal law and he, with a requisite blameworthy mind, failed to fulfil it.[4] Such legal duties to act might arise out of relationship, contracts, or statutes.

Associated Factors of Actus Reus

Act to be Voluntary

Act means a conscious or willed movement. It is conduct that results from the operation of the will. According to Austin, any movement of the body, which is not in consequence of the determination of the will, is not a voluntary act. It is only a voluntary act that amounts to an offence.

Taking the earlier analogy of A pulling the trigger of a gun, as a result of which a bullet is lodged in B’s body causing his death, A is guilty only if the act of pulling the trigger was a voluntary and conscious act.

If the gun had been triggered by mistake or accidentally, then it is not an offence and A is not guilty of murder.

An act on the part of the accused is involuntary where it is beyond his control or beyond the control of his mind. The situation is known as automatism.[5] Common examples include reflexive movements, somnambulism, epilepsy, hypnosis, and hypoglycaemia.[6]

Section 39 IPC / BNS S. 2(33): “Voluntarily” — A person is said to cause an effect voluntarily when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.

Illustration: A sets fire, by night, to an inhabited house in a large town, for the purpose of facilitating a robbery and thus causes the death of a person. Here, A may not have intended to cause death; and may even be sorry that death has been caused by his act; yet, if he knew that he was likely to cause death, he has caused death voluntarily.

The term ‘voluntarily’ as defined in this section shows that a person need not intend to cause the actual effect caused. If the effect is the probable consequence of the act done by him, then he is said to have caused it voluntarily.

Further, if a particular effect could have been avoided by due exercise of reasonable care and caution, then the effect of such negligent act is also said to have been voluntarily caused.

The question whether the effect of a particular act was caused voluntarily is a question of fact, to be determined on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case. Factors considered include: the nature of injury, the weapon used, force applied, and the part of the victim’s body affected.[8]

Act to be Prohibited by Law

In order to create criminal liability, it is not sufficient that there is mens rea and an act; the actus must be reus. However harmful or painful an event may be, it is not actus reus unless criminal law forbids it.

For example, if A had shot at B, but it missed him and instead killed a rabbit, it does not constitute murder. Thus, though there was mens rea (the intention to kill B) and the act of shooting, the resultant actus reus for murder (the death of B) is not present.

Similarly, a duly appointed executioner, who hanged a condemned prisoner till death with the intention of killing him, will not be criminally liable for the intentional death of the prisoner.

Act Should Result in Harm

Generally, crimes result in some harm. However, it is not all crimes which require that the act should result in some harm. In homicide, the required result is a pre-requisite in order to constitute an offence. Offences like treason, forgery, perjury and inchoate or incomplete crimes are per se offences, irrespective of whether they actually result in any harm or not. Thus, the causing of actual harm may or may not be a part of the actus reus. For instance, where A missed his shot and killed a rabbit instead of B, the act will amount to an offence under Section 307 IPC (Section 109 BNS) of attempt to commit murder.

Elements of Actus Reus

Actus reus means more than just ‘guilty acts’. It also includes a range of other behaviour requirements, defined in each criminal offence. For example, the actus reus of theft is taking someone else’s property, and the actus reus of murder is unlawfully killing another person. But, as these two examples show, the types of illegal behaviour vary greatly between different types of offence.

Human Conduct

It includes voluntary act or omission.

Voluntary Act

A voluntary act refers to an action that is performed consciously and willingly. The key idea here is that the act must be performed with free will. A voluntary act is a movement or group of movements that is consciously performed, often with an intent to achieve a particular outcome. It’s the result of a person’s will and determination.

Involuntary Acts

An act that occurs due to an external factor beyond the control of the person would not satisfy the voluntary act requirement for actus reus. (Automatism).

Automatism refers to a situation where a person performs an act without conscious control due to an external or internal factor. In legal terms, it is used as a defense in criminal cases to argue that the defendant should not be held criminally liable as they were not in control of their actions. Sections 76-106 of IPC (14–44 of BNS).

Automatism can arise from factors such as mental illness, intoxication, etc. (Section 84, 85 of the Indian Penal Code) (Ss. 22, 23 BNS). The case of R v. McNaughton laid the foundation for understanding mental disorders and automatism, which is known as McNaughton Rules.

In R v. Bratty, automatism is divided into two categories: sane (conduct is regarded as involuntary but sane) and insane automatism. This case is distinguished between the two, ruling that if automatism was caused by a mental disease, it was considered insane automatism. If caused by an external factor (e.g., a blow to the head), it is sane automatism.

Omission (Failure to Act)

An omission refers to a failure to act when there is a legal duty to do so. Normally, the law does not impose a duty to act, but there are certain situations where failing to act can result in criminal liability. There is no general liability for omission.

Liability will arise if:

• A statutory duty to act exists;
• A special relationship exists between the parties;
• A contractual duty to act exists;
• The defendant has created a dangerous situation.

Situations in Which an Omission Can Lead to Criminal Liability

1. A statutory duty to act exists: Certain laws impose duties to act in particular situations (e.g., failure to provide a breath sample in a DUI).
   Example: Under the IPC, Section 176 imposes a duty on certain individuals to assist police when required. (Section 211 BNS).
2. A special relationship exists between the parties: Certain relationships (e.g., parent-child, doctor-patient) create a duty to act to protect individuals under one’s care.
   Example: In R v. Gibbins and Proctor, the defendants were convicted of manslaughter for failing to feed a child under their care, leading to the child’s death.
3. A contractual duty to act exists: A person may be found criminally liable if they fail to comply with a contractual duty.
   Example: In R v. Pittwood, the defendant was employed to operate the gates at a level crossing. He failed to close the gates when a train was approaching, and a cart was struck by the train killing one of the carters. Pittwood was convicted of manslaughter.
4. The defendant has created a dangerous situation: If someone creates a dangerous situation, they have a duty to act to prevent harm.
   Example: In R v. Miller, the fire was caused by the accused and he did nothing to stop it. The court ruled that he had a duty to act because he had created a dangerous situation.

Circumstances/State of Affairs

Circumstance refers to the conditions or context in which the criminal act occurs, which can affect whether or not a crime has been committed. In some cases, a crime requires not just conduct or action but also specific circumstances for it to be considered unlawful. These may include time, place, or the defendant’s situation. These facts are critical in determining whether the act is a crime.

• Place: In the offence of criminal trespass, house-breaking, or aggravated forms thereof, the actus reus is in respect of place (ss 441–462, IPC) (Sections 329–334 BNS).
• Time: In the offences of lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night (ss 456–458, IPC) (Sections 331(2), 331(4), 331(6) of BNS), the actus reus is in respect of both place and time.
• Person: In offences of kidnapping and abduction, procuring of a minor girl, etc., the actus reus is in respect of the person (ss 359–374, IPC).
• Consent: In the offence of rape, consent is the actus reus.
• State of Mind of the Victim: In offences relating to religion (ss 295–298 IPC) (298–302 BNS), or rape committed under fear (s 375 IPC) (Section 63 BNS), actus reus is with reference to the state of mind of the victim.
• Possession: Possession of stolen property constitutes actus reus (ss 410–412 IPC) (Ss 317(1), (2), (3) of BNS).
• Preparation: Section 399 IPC (Section 310(4) BNS) makes preparation to commit dacoity an offence; hence, preparation itself constitutes actus reus.

Result / Causation

An event is very often the result of a number of factors. A factor is said to have caused a particular event, if, without that factor, the event would not have happened. Thus, a man is said to have caused the actus reus of a crime, if, that actus would not have occurred without his participation in what was done. Some causal relationship has to be established between his conduct and the prohibited result. A man is usually held criminally liable only for the consequences of his conduct as he foresaw, (or in crimes of negligence, he ought to have foreseen).

As stated earlier, the act must be the causa causans, i.e., the immediate or proximate cause of the effect. When the facts are direct and simple, then establishing the causal nexus between the act and the effect may not be difficult^[14], as for instance, in a case of a person shooting another person and thereby killing him.

The causation can also be without any direct physical act. If the victim asks his way on a dark night and the accused, with the intention of causing his death, directs him to a path that he knows will bring him to a cliff edge, and the victim suffers a fatal fall, this is clearly murder, though the accused had done nothing more than utter words^[15]. This can be true in cases of abetment, incitement and conspiracy. In the instances stated above, it is not difficult to establish the direct result between the cause and the effect. The difficulty arises only in cases of multiple causation, where it is difficult to establish the imputability. The following example given by Harris in his Criminal Law^[16] will make the principle clear.

A, intending to kill B, shoots at B but only wounds him very slightly. A clearly has the requisite mens rea for murder, that is, he foresees and desires B’s death. Now let us assume that on his being taken to the hospital in an ambulance, a piece of masonry from a building falls on the ambulance and kills B; or, alternatively, that B has a rare blood disease which prevents his blood from coagulation so that the slight wound leads to his death, which it would not have done if he had not been suffering from this disease; or, alternatively, that B refuses to have the wound treated and dies of blood poisoning, which would not have occurred if B had had the wound treated. In all these cases, a problem of causation arises, i.e. did A cause B’s death for the purposes of the criminal law so that he can be convicted of murder?

If the result is too remote and accidental in its occurrence, then there is no criminal liability.

In order to establish whether a defendant can be guilty of a crime, one must first establish a factual link between his conduct and the result caused. Causation falls into two categories: factual causation and legal causation — both must be satisfied in order for a defendant to be found liable.

Factual Causation

Factual causation can be established only when the result has been occurred by the conduct of the accused.

In R v White^[17], White put poison in his mother’s bedtime drink. When she was found dead the next morning, he was charged with her murder, but it was eventually established that his mother had consumed very little of the poison. She had died, coincidentally, of natural causes. W’s conduct had not in any sense contributed to this. He was therefore guilty only of attempting to murder her.

Legal Causation (Proximate Cause)

Even if the defendant’s conduct is a factual cause of the result, it must also be a legal cause. This means that the defendant’s conduct must be sufficiently connected to the result.

In R v. Pagett^[18], the defendant used his girlfriend as a human shield during a police shootout. The police accidentally shot her, and it was held that the defendant’s actions were the legal cause of her death.

There are three specific elements that must be satisfied in order for legal causation to be satisfied:

• The cause must be substantial to the extent that it is more than slight or trifling.
• The defendant must have done some extent blameworthy in respect of the harm.
• The defendant’s actions must be operating on the victim.

The defendant may avoid liability even if found to have factually caused the victim’s harm in the following circumstances:

• Some act of another person that intervenes between the defendant’s conduct and the end result; or
• Some event which occurs between the defendant’s conduct and the end result.

These circumstances are described collectively as novus actus interveniens. Novus actus interveniens is a Latin term that means “a new act intervenes”. It’s a legal doctrine that refers to an intervening event that breaks the chain of causation between an initial wrongful act and the resulting harm.

Acts by Third Parties

If a third party intervenes in the events that result in the harm to the victim, the effect of these actions may be sufficient to break the chain of causation between the defendant and the victim’s harm. However, there are several limitations that arise in this respect.

In R v Pagett[19], the defendant used his girlfriend as a human shield against the police whilst shooting at the police. The police returned fire and unfortunately killed the girlfriend. Pagett argued that it was the actions of the police that had caused the death, not his own actions. The result was that it was Pagett who had caused the death because of his actions. What appears to be is that an act of a third party will not break the chain of causation if it is an action that is foreseen or foreseeable.

Medical Intervention

In R v Jordan[20], the victim was admitted to hospital with stab wounds. When the victim died 8 days later, his wounds had largely healed and it was held that it was medical treatment subsequent to the healing of the wounds that caused the death, rather than the wounds themselves. The wounds were not an operating and substantial cause of the death.

In R v Cheshire[21], the defendant, Cheshire, shot a man. The victim was taken to the hospital, where he underwent surgery and developed respiratory problems. He later died. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for murder, ruling that the defendant’s actions made a “significant contribution” to the victim’s death.

Acts of the Victim

In R v Kennedy[22], it was held that a person who provided another a syringe containing heroin could not be held liable when the victim injected themselves with it. This was because the act of injection was carried out freely and therefore broke the chain of causation from the act of providing the drug. The defendant would have only been liable if the drug was jointly administered.

The Eggshell Skull Rule (Vulnerability of Victim)

The eggshell skull principle, also known as the thin skull rule, is a legal doctrine stating that a defendant is liable for all the damages caused by his actions, even if the extent of the injury is greater than anticipated due to the victim’s pre-existing vulnerabilities.

In R v Hayward[23], the defendant was found liable for his wife’s death from a pre-existing heart condition when he threatened her causing her to suffer a heart attack.

Causation and Negligence

The difficulty of causation arises very often in cases of negligence. It has to be established that first, the conduct of the person was negligent and secondly, that but for the negligent act of the accused, the accident would not have occurred. In other words, the actus reus should be causally connected to the act, which should be proved to be negligent.

In order to impose criminal liability under s 304A, IPC, it is essential to establish that death is the direct result of the rash or (and) negligent act of the accused.[24] It must be causa causans—the immediate cause and not enough that it may be causa sine qua non, i.e., proximate cause. There can be no conviction when rashness or negligence of a third party intervenes.

Case: Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra[25]

The accused who was driving a jeep struck the deceased, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. The accused put the injured person in the jeep for medical treatment, but he died. Thereafter, the accused cremated the body. The accused was charged under Ss 304A and 201 of the IPC.

As per s 304A, there must be a direct nexus between the death of a person and rash and negligent act of the accused that caused the death. It was the prosecution’s case that the accused had only a learner’s licence and hence was guilty. The court held that there was no presumption that a person without a regular licence cannot drive. There was evidence that he had driven the jeep on the previous day. However, there was no evidence of rash and negligent driving, so no offence under s 304A was made out. The accused was acquitted.

Case: Ambalal D Bhatt v. State of Gujarat[26]

The accused was a chemist in charge of the injection department of a chemical company. The company prepared glucose in normal saline. The solution sometimes contained lead nitrate within a permissible limit. In this case, the solution contained lead nitrate far above permissible limits, resulting in the death of twelve patients.

The accused failed to assign separate batch numbers to each lot, as required. The prosecution claimed this negligence prevented the analyst from detecting the contaminated lot. However, it was found that the practice of assigning one batch number to multiple lots was common in the company and known to authorities. Holding the accused solely responsible would be scapegoating. The Supreme Court set aside his conviction under s 304A.

Minimal Causation^[27]

When the death of a person is caused after medical treatment, it cannot be said that the treatment was not proper or inadequate, or had better treatment been given, the death would not have taken place. This is because, the intervention of the doctor is in the nature of minimum causation and hence his intervention would have played only a minor part, if any, in causing death.

In Moti Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh^[28], the deceased Gayacharan had received two gunshot wounds in the abdomen which were dangerous to life. The injury was received on 9 February 1960. There was no evidence when he was discharged from the hospital and whether he had fully recovered or not. He, however, died on 1 March 1960. His body was cremated without any post mortem being done.

The Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the two gunshot injuries were dangerous to life were not sufficient for holding that Gayacharan’s death, which took place about three weeks after the incident, was on account of the injuries received by him. The court observed that in order to prove the charge of Gayacharan’s murder, it was necessary to establish that he had died on account of the injuries received by him. Since there was no evidence to establish the cause of death, the accused could not be said to have caused the death of Gayacharan. A crucial aspect highlighted by the court in this case was that the connection between the primary cause and the death should not be too remote.

In Rewaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh^[29], the accused had caused multiple injuries with a knife to his wife Gyanvatibai. She was admitted into the hospital and an operation was performed on her. Thereafter, she developed hyperpyrexia, i.e., high temperature, as a result of which she died. This hyperpyrexia was a result of atmospheric temperature on weak, debilitated individuals, who already had some temperature.

The doctor who performed the postmortem opined that the death was not as a result of multiple injuries, but because of hyperpyrexia. The Madhya Pradesh High Court placed reliance on Explanation 2 to Section 299 of the IPC. It observed that if the supervening causes are attributed to the injuries caused, then the person inflicting the injuries is liable for causing death, even if death was not the direct result of the injuries.

In the instant case, there was medical evidence to show that the hyperpyrexia or the running of high temperature was a result of her debilitated condition. Gyanvatibai fell into debilitated condition because of multiple injuries which she had sustained, the operation which she had to undergo, and which was necessary for her recovery. Thus, her death was a direct post-operative starvation, consequence of the injuries inflicted on her. Intervening or supervening of hyperpyrexia was a direct result of the multiple injuries and was independent or unconnected with the serious injuries sustained by her. As a result, it was held that the accused had caused her death and therefore his conviction for murder was upheld.

Unexpected Interventions

Unexpected interventions or twists in the acts, which cause the result, can create complications while fixing causation. However, if otherwise, the culpability is clear, the mere fact that there were unexpected interventions or twists, cannot exonerate the person from criminal liability. But, it may have effect on the degree or gravity of culpability, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

In Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab^[30], the deceased Rupinder Singh teased the sister of the accused. In retaliation, the two accused went to Rupinder’s house and shouted that they had come to take away the sister of Rupinder Singh. In the meantime, the cousins of Rupinder Singh intervened. One of them was given a blow on the neck by the accused. Meanwhile, Rupinder Singh started running towards the field. The accused started chasing him as a result of which Rupinder Singh jumped into a well due to which he sustained head injuries which made him unconscious and thereafter he died due to drowning.

The Supreme Court held that the accused were about 15 to 20 feet from Rupinder Singh when he jumped into the well. There was no evidence to show that the accused drove Rupinder Singh into the well or that they left him no option but to jump into the well. Under these circumstances, it was held that the accused could not have caused the death of Rupinder Singh and hence, they were entitled to be acquitted of the charge of murder.

This aspect came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh v. Delhi Administration^[31]. In this case, the accused was trying to assault one Dalip Singh and the deceased intervened. The accused, finding himself one against two, took out a knife and stabbed the deceased. At that stage, the deceased happened to be in a crouching position presumably to intervene and separate the two. The knife pierced the upper portion of the left thigh. The stab wound was oblique, and it cut the femoral artery and vein under the muscle, which are important blood vessels of the body, and the cutting of these vessels would result in great loss of blood and would lead to immediate death or death after a short duration.

The Supreme Court held that from the evidence, it was proved that it was not the intention of the appellant to inflict that particular injury on that particular place. In view of this, it was held that thirdly of Section 300, IPC, would not apply. The accused was convicted under Section 304, IPC.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the concept of actus reus plays a foundational role in establishing criminal liability, serving as one of the essential components of a criminal offence alongside mens rea. It represents the physical or external elements of a crime, encompassing not only voluntary acts but also omissions and, in some instances, consequences resulting from a defendant’s conduct. The requirement that the act must be voluntary ensures that only individuals who have control over their actions can be held legally accountable, thereby aligning criminal liability with principles of fairness and justice.

The interplay between actus reus and mens rea is critical in defining the boundaries of criminal responsibility. Liability cannot be imposed solely on the basis of a guilty mind without an accompanying guilty act. Courts have developed nuanced interpretations of actus reus to reflect modern societal values, particularly in relation to omissions and causation. For instance, liability for omissions arises only when a legal duty to act exists, underscoring the law’s emphasis on personal responsibility and foreseeability.

Furthermore, doctrines such as causation, both factual and legal, serve as vital mechanisms for linking the defendant’s conduct to the resulting harm, ensuring that liability is imposed only when there is a sufficiently proximate connection. The complexity of such assessments illustrates the evolving nature of criminal law and its attempt to balance individual rights with public protection.

Ultimately, actus reus is not merely a technical requirement but a reflection of the moral and legal standards that underpin criminal justice. Its careful application ensures that the legal system targets blameworthy conduct while protecting individuals from unjust punishment. Thus, understanding and properly applying the concept of actus reus is essential for ensuring that criminal liability is assigned fairly, proportionately, and justly in accordance with established legal principles.

References

• Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law, second edn, Stevens & Sons, 1983
• Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code, 35th edn, Lexis Nexis, 2021
• Harris’s Criminal Law, Ian Mclean & Peter Morrish (eds), 22nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 1973
• Arshdeep Ghuman, Elements of Crime retrieved from ijlmh.com
• Niraj S Swami, An Analysis of the Elements of Criminal Liability retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350966086_An_Analysis_of_the_Elements_of_Criminal_Liability
• https://www.lawteacher.net/lectures/criminal-law/committing-an-offence/actus-reus/
• https://www.ramauniversity.ac.in/online-study-aterial/law/llb/isemester/lawofcrimes/lecture-2.pdf
• https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-pg/actus-reus-mens-rea-indian-penal-code/

End-Notes:

1. The expression ‘actus reus’ has apparently been coined by Prof Kenny in the first edition of his Outlines of Criminal Law in 1902.
2. AIR 1961 SC1782
3. Re Gunga Singh (1873) 5 NWP 44, cited from, Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s The Indian Penal Code
4. Benoychandra v. State of West Bengal (1984) Cr LJ 1038 (Cal).
5. Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law, second edn, Stevens & Sons, 1983, pp 608-609.
6. Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462; Patraswar v State of Assam (1989) Cr LJ 196 (Gau).
7. Abdul Majeed v State of Kerala (1994) Cr LJ 1404 (Ker).
8. Bhaba Nanda Sarma v State of Assam, AIR 1977 SC 2252.
9. (1843) 8 E.R. 718
10. [1963] AC 386
11. [1918] 13 Cr App Rep 134
12. (1902) 19 TLR 37
13. [1983] 2 AC 161
14. Glanville Williams, ‘Criminal Law – Causation’, Cambridge Law Journal, 1976, p 15
15. Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law, second edn, Stevens & Sons, 1983, p 378.
16. Harris’s Criminal Law, Ian Mclean & Peter Morrish (eds), 22nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 1973, p 22.
17. [1910] 2 KB 124
18. (1983) 76 Cr App R 279.
19. (1983) 76 Cr App R 279
20. (1956) 40 Cr App R 152
21. [1991] 3 All ER 670
22. [2007] UKHL 38
23. (1908) 21 Cox CC 692
24. S N Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 685
25. AIR 1968 SC 829
26. AIR 1972 SC1150.
27. Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law, second edn, Stevens & Sons, 1983, p 385.
28. AIR 1964 SC 900
29. (1978) Cr LJ 858 (MP); see also Virsa Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465; Kishore Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1977 SC 2267.
30. AIR 1979 SC 1876.
31. AIR 1968 SC 867.