Introduction
Generally, there are four elements of criminal liability, the first one is Human Being, Mental Element, Act or Omission and the last one is Injury. Apart from these four, Causation and Concurrence are also crucial elements in order to constitute a crime. Causation links the defendant’s actions to the harm caused & Concurrence links the defendant’s mental state to the criminal act. The author, in this paper shall try to define and explain the essential elements of criminal liability, including actus reus, mens rea, and causation, while analysing the core concepts and principles that constitute criminal liability. “A crime is a designated wrong which attracts the punitive mechanism of the state against the person or persons committing the said wrong.”
The broader concept of Law of Crime is that Crime is not just wrongdoings against individuals; instead, it affects the society as a whole. This is why the punishments for crimes are different from those for other kinds of civil wrongs, or breach of contracts. Now, the elements of a criminal liability are also defined in a systematic order. The first one is Human Being and then comes Mental Element. It is obvious that ‘mens rea’ is essential for a crime, each criminal act is distinguishable and there are some common elements that unite them. These shared characteristics are what we call the ‘elements of a crime.’ Things like the specific actions involved or the required mindset can vary widely between different crimes. There are underlying principles also that apply to all criminal acts, regardless of their specific nature, which the author shall try to explain. The concept is derived from Latin term “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,” which means “the act will not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty.”
In criminal law, the intention of accused is always tested to examine criminal liability. If the accused has done the act intentionally, it attracts strict liability and if the same person has committed an act negligently or mistakenly, it’s a valid defence to escape from the liability. However, in some cases, certain offenses may fall under strict liability, where proving mens rea is not necessary. This is common in regulatory offenses, such as environmental laws, where the focus is on the act itself rather than the intent behind it. The author will analyze the essential components and defences of criminal liability in this paper.
The research is undertaken with the view to discovering the complicated elements that compose criminal liability. Also, the author will try to explain how the various defences were used to dispute criminal liability, through an analysis of the various defences and Scholars texts.
Case Study
Mr. Rajeev is a normal civilian. He was invited over for tea by his Mr. Sharma. During their conversation, Mr. Rajeev accidentally spilled his tea, which inadvertently knocked over Mr. Sharma’s cup. Unknown to Mr. Rajeev, Mr. Sharma had poisoned his tea due to a long-standing feud between them. Tragically, Mr. Sharma consumed the poisoned tea and later died.
This situation raises a critical legal question: can Mr. Rajeev be held criminally liable for Mr. Sharma’s death, given that he had no intention to harm him?
First of all, there is a Human Being and Injury is also there the principle of ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’—which means an act does not make a person guilty until there is mens rea. While Mr. Rajeev’s action of spilling the tea constitutes the actus reus (guilty act), he lacked the mens rea (guilty mind) necessary for criminal liability. Therefore, Mr. Rajeev cannot be held liable for Mr. Sharma’s death in eyes of law.
Mens Rea & Actus Reus
The Latin phrase “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” underscores the fundamental principle that a person cannot be held criminally responsible solely for committing an act. Both a wrongful deed (actus reus) and a guilty state of mind (mens rea) must be present simultaneously for criminal liability to attach. Essentially, the law requires not just a harmful action but also a culpable mental state when determining guilt. The first element of a crime is the physical action itself, known as the actus reus. This is distinct from the mental state, or mens rea. Essentially, it’s the prohibited behavior that causes harmful results. For a crime to occur, this action must be voluntary.
“The act or omissions that comprise the physical elements of a crime as required by statute.“
However, there are exceptions: involuntary actions like reflexes or spasms generally won’t lead to criminal liability. While hypnosis might be a defence in some cases, it’s often difficult to prove. Importantly, even if an act is initially involuntary, if it was preceded by a voluntary action (like getting drunk), criminal responsibility can still arise. This is often seen in cases involving intoxication. Mens rea, or the mental state of a person during a crime, is often linked to blameworthiness. However, in law, the term has a more specific meaning. It refers to the state of mind required by a statute for a particular crime, regardless of whether the act was morally wrong.
To determine if someone is criminally liable, the law often compares their actions to that of a “reasonable person.” This fictional character represents the standard of behavior expected in society. If someone’s actions fall below this standard, they might be found guilty. This concept helps ensure that everyone is held to the same legal expectations, preventing excuses based on ignorance. Ultimately, the goal is to protect society by deterring harmful behavior.
“The reference to the prudent man, as a standard, is the only form in which blameworthiness as such is an element of crime, and what would be blameworthy in such a man is an element; first, as a survival of true moral standards; second, because to punish what would not be blameworthy in an average member of the community would be to enforce a standard which was indefensible theoretically, and which practically was too high for that community.”
The specific mental state required for a crime varies. Terms like “intentionally,” “maliciously,” or “knowingly” define this mental element, often categorized as intent, recklessness, or wilful blindness. Murder is a prime example. The term “malice aforethought” signifies the necessary intent for this crime. It doesn’t matter if the killer hated the victim; what matters is the conscious decision to cause death. The law says that actions are based on the perspective of a reasonable person, not the individual’s personal feelings. Whether one shoots a lover or a stranger, the legal consequences are the same if the act meets the criteria for murder. This “reasonable person” standard upholds the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse, ensuring everyone is held accountable to the same legal expectations. To explain the same, I shall cite two british case studies:
- A group of striking miners threw concrete blocks from a bridge onto a road below, aiming to block the passage. Unfortunately, a taxi driver was killed when a block crashed through the windshield. While the miners claimed they didn’t intend to harm anyone, the court determined that the high probability of injury or death from their actions was sufficient to convict them of manslaughter.
- A man accidentally killed his stepfather during a drunken game involving a shotgun. The lower court ruled that the defendant’s foresight of potential harm was enough for a murder conviction. However, the higher court overturned this decision, clarifying that for a murder conviction, there must be a clear intent to kill or cause serious harm. This case emphasized the distinction between foresight of harm and the specific intent required for murder.
Causation and Concurrence
An elementary tenet of criminal law was that actus reus (the wrongful physical done itself) and mens rea (mental state or intention) must be concomitant. The required mental state is that the defendant must have intended to engage in criminal conduct, known as “intent”; or to do something he knows will cause a particular result which by definition makes crime more serious like death — for example intent; and commit it with malice aforethought. Actus Reus includes the illegal act and any of its illicit consequences. Therefore, the mens rea, that is necessary must be required for both the intended conduct and any collateral forbiddance.
If, for example, someone sets out to shoot a neighbour and ends up hitting them with their car instead but the intent was strictly murder: that person could not be charged because killing does not causally connect back to said act. In the same way, a fire that starts when an unsuspecting worker lights a haystack is not arson because for it to be considered as such there needs intent and in this case it only lacks of one element: which is required. In addition, some crimes (especially murder) are not defined by a single mental state (mens rea), e.g., intent-to-kill. Furthermore, in most jurisdictions the murder charge sought for first-degree will hold when there is intent to kill or inflict serious harm (though it can also result from an imminently dangerous reckless act), while a felony-murder residing under specific enumerated laws within that jurisdiction. Actus reus and mens rea make up the physical act of a crime, which defines criminal conduct for the prosecution that must be proven beyond reasonable doubt in order to establish guilt.
Defendant’s actions should be viewed as a series of delineated acts in the course of one transaction. All of this is not enough, and it must all be thought through together (since to do otherwise would be needlessly complicated). They should both be seen as a general policy and taken into account overall.
“It does not matter if some of the accused’s acts are done without mens rea provided mens rea is contemporaneous with other acts by the accused which form part of the overall conduct.”‘
Defences
In landmark case of Mohindar Singh vs. The State (1959), Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that defendant’s acts are part of the same series of events. We must be not evaluating these crises independently as doing so would get too unwieldy and complicated; In fact, they have to be seen together – not in isolation as singular bits of policy but the combined course which enables an evaluation. That principle is that acts committed without the requisite mens rea (criminal intent) do not matter so long as an actus reus, or a culpable deed had occurred with the malice to sin and simultaneously exists in other actions relevant to practical consequences. The need for simultaneity is met by viewing the actus reus (the action itself) as multiple acts that should be connected. Some reasons for acquittal aren’t really defences at all. For instance, if someone claims they were acting unconsciously (automatism), they’re essentially saying the prosecution hasn’t proven that they committed a crime. This is because a crime usually requires a guilty mind (mens rea). Even honest mistakes can sometimes be a defence if they prevented the person from forming the necessary criminal intent. Professor Lanham has given a comprehensive analysis on the same:
“As a matter of analysis, we can think of a crime as being made up of three ingredients, actus reus, mens rea and (a negative element) absence of a valid defence. Some defences (e.g. alibi) negative the actus reus. Some defences (e.g. I did not mean to do it) negative the mens rea. A third group of defences (e.g. self-defence) operate without negativing cither positive clement, in effect as a confession and avoidance. But there is a fourth kind of defence, which is perfectly capable of standing as a confession and avoidance but which normally will negative one or other (or both) of the actus reus and mens rea.”
Other things, like being forced to do something (duress), acting out of necessity, intoxication, consent, self-defence, or being too young, are true defences. These don’t deny that the person did the act (actus reus) or had a guilty mind, but offer other reasons why they shouldn’t be held responsible. There are different legal theories about how these defences fit into the overall picture of a crime.
Conclusion
Elements of criminal liability actually help a jury or a judge to actually determine actual crime at grassroot level. Among all the other elements, mens rea and actus reus are the fundamental tenets to examine criminal liability. In words of Sir James Fitz Stephen, a prominent 19th-century English legal theorist, criminal liability arises when a person commits an act prohibited by law with a guilty mind (mens rea). His emphasis on the importance of both the physical act (actus reus) and the mental element in establishing criminal responsibility has been influential in shaping legal systems worldwide. The concepts of mens rea (guilty mind) and actus reus (guilty act) are not explicitly defined in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, they are inherent in the way offenses are defined throughout the code. For an example: Section 378 defines theft as “whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent.” The actus reus is taking movable property, while the mens rea is dishonest intention.
