Doctrine of Mens Rea and Its Application under BNS | Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

The doctrine of mens rea is derived from the Latin maxim 'Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea' which means an act alone does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were so. Coined by Lord Edward Coke, this principle emphasizes the necessity of a guilty mind in establishing criminal liability.

Mens rea is an element of crime, even though it is not expressly mentioned in the definition of offence under Section 2(24) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Concerning the necessity of mens rea in an offence, it is important to note that some offences, such as those of strict liability, do not require mens rea.

This article explores the meaning of the doctrine of mens rea, the concept of mens rea and its applicability under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

What Is Mens Rea?

Mens rea, referring to the ‘guilty mind,’ is assessed during court proceedings to establish criminal liability, as it plays a pivotal role in determining the nature of the offence. The concept of mens rea essentially points out that criminal liability should be imposed on someone who has not only committed a wrongful act but also had some mental element behind it.

Thus, to decide if an accused had the requisite mental element or mens rea demands a subjective assessment of the perpetrator’s mental state, in which facts such as intention, knowledge, voluntariness, recklessness or negligence have to be explored. This is because culpability is not merely determined by action, but it is also the perpetrator’s guilty mind that inflicts culpability upon him.

Doctrine of Mens Rea: Origin and Evolution

The doctrine of mens rea has evolved through judicial interpretation and common law principles. In the case of Sweat v. Parsley (1970), Lord Diplock stated:

an act does not make a man guilty of a crime unless his mind is also guilty.

For establishing criminal liability there must be a voluntary act, and this proposition is derived from the maxim ‘actus me invito factus non est mens actus’ which means ‘an act done by me against my will is not my act’. However, there are exceptions to this element of ‘voluntary act’ that is, public nuisance and strict liability offences, in which offence is constituted even in the absence of mens rea or mental element.

Concerning Strict liability offences, it was held in the case of Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895), that the principle of strict liability is applied in cases where the offence concerns public welfare or regulatory matters considered crucial for protecting the public interest.

Applicability of Mens Rea in the BNS

While the BNS does not explicitly define mens rea, its significance can be inferred from various sections. Below are key provisions where mens rea is evident:

1. Section 100 of BNS – Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder

Culpable homicide is defined in this section as the act of causing death with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death or with the intent to cause death.

In this case, the necessity of mens rea is reflected in the existence of intention or awareness of the anticipated effects.

2. Section 101 of BNS – Murder

Culpable homicide with specific intent, such as the intent to cause death, the intent to cause bodily harm that results in death, or the intent to carry out an act known to cause death, is referred to as murder. The act's intentional intent demonstrates mens rea.

3. Section 106 of BNS – Causing death by negligence

This makes it illegal to cause death through negligence. However, the carelessness must be severe enough to show a lack of concern for human life or security. Therefore, the accused's careless or reckless actions are utilized to infer mens rea.

4. Section 3(5) of BNS – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention

This provision holds individuals liable when a crime is committed in pursuance of a shared intention, reflecting collective mens rea.

5. Section 61 of BNS – Criminal Conspiracy

A criminal conspiracy is when two or more people decide to do something illegal together. Whether or not the conspiracy results in the intended offence being committed, mens rea is inherently present in the conspirators' desire to commit illegal activity.

6. Section 318 of BNS – Cheating

The prosecution must demonstrate that the accused acted dishonestly with the intent to deceive another person to show the crime of cheating. Therefore, mens rea is essential to identify the act's false intent.

7. Section 356 of BNS – Defamation

Defamation is the deliberate publishing of untrue comments that damage someone's reputation. The intentional spread of false information to harm the victim's reputation is a clear example of mens rea.

General Exceptions and Defences under the BNS

As per Section 3(1) of the BNS, the sections, illustrations and offences mentioned in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita are subject to the general exceptions contained in Chapter III of the BNS (Section 14 – 44). Even when mens rea and actus reus coexist, if it falls within any of the exceptions or defences mentioned in the BNS, which are as follows:

1. An act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law
2. Act of judge when acting judicially
3. Act done pursuant to judgment or order of court
4. Accident in doing a lawful act
5. Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm
6. Act of a child under seven years or above seven years and under twelve years of age of immature understanding
7. Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will
8. Act of a person of unsound mind
9. Act done with consent in good faith or for person’s benefit
10. Things done in private defence

Conclusion

The doctrine of mens rea remains a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, ensuring that culpability reflects not just wrongful acts but also the perpetrator’s guilty mind. This makes it possible to ensure that the penalty is appropriate for the offender's mental condition. The doctrine of mens rea ensures that individuals are held accountable based on their mental state at the time of the offence, fostering justice and fairness in criminal adjudication.

References

[1] Doctrine of Mens Rea, Available Here

[2] Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

[3] Sweet v. Parsley [1970] AC 132

[4] Sherras v. De Rutzen [1895] 1 QB 918