ELEMENTS OF CRIME

                                    ELEMENTS OF CRIME

            Criminal guilt of act would attach to a man for violations of Criminal Law However, the Latin Maxim 'acts non fact remu nisi mens sit rea' i.e, no Criminal without a guilty mind. The act should be a wrongful act- 'actus reus'. A mere criminal intention not fallowed by a prohibited act cannot constitute a crime. Similarly, mere 'acts reus' ceases to be a crime as it lacks 'mens rea'. In juristic concept actus reuse represents the physical aspect of crime, and mens rea, its mental aspect, which must be criminal. The criminal act causes harm to others. The Chief elements necessary to constitute a crime are.

            (i) A human being under a legal obligation has to act in a particular way and he is a fit                   subject for appropriate punishment for his wrongful acts;

               (ii) An act committed or omitted in furtherance of such an intent (actus reus);

            (iii) An evil intent on the part of such a human being (mens rea).

            (iv) An injury to another human being or to society at large by such act.

            Among the elements of crime actus reus and mens rea are considered as essential elements of crime.

1.         Human Being:

             The act must have been done by a human being before it can constitute a crime punishable at law. Generally, both the wrongdoer and aggrieved/ injured/ deceased are human beings. In ancient times, punishment used to be inflicted on animals or inanimate objects for injury caused by them. Baring Gould's 'Curiosities of Olden Times' provides "The first time an ass if found in a cultivated field not belonging to its master, one of its ear is chopped off. If it commits the same offence again, it loses the second ear". However, even the owner of the animal is taken to task for the wrongful acts of his animal. For example, if on gores a man to death, the ox was stoned and the owner put to death". With the development of the nation of mens rea as an essential element of crime, the trial and punishment of animals and inanimate objects had to be given up. Therefore, only a human being under a legal obligation can be the subject of criminal law. It means a human being must have a body. Artificial persons corporations are not capable of being punished.

2.         Actus Reus (Physical Act or Omission):

             The expression 'actus reus' has apparently been coined by Prof.Kenny in the first edition of his 'Outilnes of Criminal Law, in 1902.

             The term \ actus reus' has been given a much wider meaning by Glanville Williams in his Criminal Law thus :

             "When we sue the technical term actus reus we include all the external circumstances and consequences specified in the rule of law as constituting the forbidden situation. Reus must be taken as indicating the situation specified in the actus reus as no that, given any necessary metal elements, is forbidden by law. In other words, actus reus means the whole definition of the crime with the exceptions of the mental element and it even includes a mental element in so far as that is contained in the definition of an Act. This meaning of actus reus follows inevitably from the preposition that all the constituents of a crime are either acts reus or mens rea".

            Actus reus connotes an over 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 b the firing of a gun, which is the conduct which produced the result. 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., the death is calld mens rea. Every crime involves the combined presence of both actus reus and mens rea.

            The word 'actus' connotes a 'deed', a physical result of human conduct. The word 'reus' means 'forbidden by law'. The term 'actus reus', may, therefore be defined as "such result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent.

            Ressel calls actus reus as 'physical result of human conduct according to Kenny, 'actus reus' is such a result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent.

            The actus reus is made up of there constituent parts, namely.

            (i) human action which is usually termed as 'conduct';

            (ii) the result of such act in the specific circumstances, which is designated as 'injury' ;                           and

            (iii) such act as in 'prohibited by law'.

            Conduct: Actus means 'deed of commission, a result of active conduct. Actus reus is the result of the human actus. An act is defied as 'an event subject to the control of the will.' An means something voluntarily done by a human being. Human action includes acts of commission as well as actus of omission.

            According to Section 33 of the IPC, the word 'act' denotes as well a serious of acts as a single act, the word 'omission' denotes as well a series of omissions as a single omission.

As per Section 32 of the IPC, in every part this Code, except where a contrary intention appears from the context, words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omission.

            The actus reus is the result of conduct and therefore it is an event. For example A stabbed B with a knife. The result is the injury to B it means injury is the result of actus reus.

For the purpose of fixing criminal liability, an act may be analyzed as consisting of three parts:

(i) its origin in some mental or bodity activity or passivity of the dore, that is , a willed movement or omission;

(ii) its circumstances: and

(iii) its consequences.

illustration: A shoots B to death with a rifle. The material elements of the act are: (i) a series of muscular contraction by which the rifle is raised and the trigger pulled: (ii) the rifle is loaded, positioned himself within range iii) the consequences the fall of the trigger, explosion of the power, the discharge of the bullate, striking of the body of the victim resulting in his death. all these constitute 'an act 'i.e , 'A killed B ',for which he will be criminally liable.

            Result of conduct: to constitute a criminal there must always be a result brought about by human; a physical event the law prohibits. Acts reus is the result of human conduct or is an event for example in the case of a murder, it is the victim's death brought by shooting. if the shooting wounds the victim, the accused human being have a body. Artificial person corporation are not capable of being punished. Will be liable for the offence of attempt to murder and for causing simple or grievous hurt and not liable for murder.

            Actus Prohibited by Law : An act is not a crime unless prohibited by law. Only those acts that the law has chosen to forbid are crimes. No crime is committed when a solider, in a battlefield, shoots an enemy. This act being authorized by law, the killing is not the actus reus of crime. Similarly, no crime is committed when a person exercising his lawful right of private defence caused harm to another.

            An act is omission, to be punishable, must be an illegal omission or a breach of legal duty. For instance, a jailor who starves the prisoners in his charge to death is guilty of murder as he failed to discharge his legal obligation to provide melas to the prisoners. Similarly, death of a newly born child, may be caused by a deliberate refusal to feed the baby. Here the unlawful homicide – an actus reus – is caused not by any positive act (a deed of commission) but a negative act (an act of omission). An act of omission attracts criminal liability only when a person is placed under duty to act as recognized by the Criminal law and he, with requisite blameworthy mind, failed to fulfill it.

In Omprakash v. state of Panjab [AIR1956 All 241] the accused omitted to provide food to his wife and looked he in a corner. She had escaped and charged him. The supreme court convicted the accused for attempt to commit murder.

            The requirement of actus reuse various depending o the definition of there crime, actus reus may but with reference to place, fact time, person, consent, the state of mind the victim, possession or even mere preparation. In criminal trespass, the actus reuse is in respect of the place, in house -braking by night, the actus reuse is in respect of both place and time; in offence of kidnapping and abduction, the actus reuse is respect of the person; in the offence of rape, consent is the actus reuse; preparation for dacoity is the actus reuse of an offence; and possession of stolen property constitutes the actus reuse in certain offences.

3. Mens Rea [Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea]:

            According to Samshul Huna, the very cornerstone of Criminal Jurisprudence is the mens rea. Mens rea is one of essential element of criminal liability. Mens rea is a technical term. Generally taken to mens some blameworthy mental condition, weather constitutes by intention or knowledge otherwise, the absence of which in any particular occasion, negatives the contention of a crime.

            Mens rea has been often defined to mean a mental element or 'a guilty mind' or 'evil intention'. Mens rea means "an intention to do a forbidden act". It may be defined as the mental element necessary to constitute criminal liability. No act is perse criminal, it becomes criminal only when doer does it with guilty mind. No external conduct, however serious in its consequence s produced bu some wrongful intent, fault or mens rea.

            The doctrine of mens rea is expressed in the familiar Latin maxim, "actus non facit reum nisi sit rea' i.e., the act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also guilty. For example, a person having a gun in his hand shoots at a tiger, but kills a man who was concealing himself behind a bush and was not visible to that person. He could have been held guilty if he know that a man is behind the bush or if he had been negligent but in the present example the person cannot be held guilty because neither he had the knowledge that the victim was behind the bush nor he was in way negligent. So a person cannot be held guilty of an offence if the same could be executable as an accident

            For instance, if A, a blacksmith, is seized by a gang of robbers and is forced to break open the doors of a house for the robbers to enter and commit robbery, he is not liable for committing robbery and for breaking open the doors. A had to concede to the demands of the robbers under a threat of instant death, and to the act of breaking the doors was not a voluntary act for he may be held liable.

            The importance of mens rea can be understood when he consider its application to factual situation. For instance, A supplied as he walked and fell. As he fell he lost his balance and pulled down B with hum. B hit his head against the wall, sustained head injury and died. A satisfies ne portion of the definition of crime, which is doing an act which actus death. But still it does not constitute the offence of murder because another essential element of the offence of murder i.e., the intention to cause death, is absent. Hence A is not guilty of murder. Similarly, if a person intents to dishonestly take a movable property out of possession of a person without his consent, it amounts out of possession of a person without his consent, it amounts to theft But if a person takes a movable property from a person without his consent, but by mistake, the act does not constitute the offence of theft.

            The following acts are considered as offences relating to mens rea under IPC: (i) intentionally joining an unlawful assembly (S. 142); (ii) harbouring rioters knowing fully well that they are rioters (S. 157); (iii) fraudulently dishonestly or with intent to injure making a false claim in a Court (S. 209); (iv) fraudulent use of weighing instrument knowing it to be false (S. 264); (v) uttering words with deliberate intention to wound religious religious feeling (S. 298).

            The principle relation to mens rea is well highlighted by Lord Wright in 'Shenas v. De Ruzlen [(1895) IBQ 918] thus : "There is a presumption that mens rea, an evil intention or a knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, is an essential ingredient in every offence, but that presumption is liable to be displace either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject-matter with which it deals, and both must be considered.

            In R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills Ltd., [AIR 1977 SC 2279] it has been observed that "……Even we may reject the notion that a penalty or a punishment acnnnot be cast in th form of an absolute or no fault liability, but must be preceded by mens rea. The classical view that 'no mens rea, no crime' has long ago been eroded and several laws in India and abroad, especially regarding economic crimes and departmental penalties, have created server punishment even where the offences have been defined to exclude mens rea."

            Mens rea is an essential ingredient in every crime except in the following two types of offence where the presence of mens rea is not important:

            (i) the misdemeanours of causing a public nuisance in which a person may be held liable.

            (ii) the Criminal Contempt of Court.

            According to Wright, J the mens rea is an essential ingredient in every offence except in three cases

            (i) cases which are not criminal but are prohibited in the public interest under penalty;

            (ii) public nuisance; and

            (iii) the case which are in the form of criminal but actually are for enforcing a civil right.

            [in Sherras v. De Rutzon (1895) 1 QB 918]

            Mens rea refuse to the mental element necessary for the particular crime. Mental element may be either intention to do the act or bring about the consequence or in some crimes recklessness as to that consequence, it implies a blameworthy condition of mind which involves a knowledge of the character of the act and foresight of the consequence. Mens rea does not mean a single person state of mind but it takes of different colours in different surroundings. The truth that them is no single precise state of mind common to all crime.

            How to disprove mens rea has been succinctly stated in Halsbury's Laws of England thus. "When the existence of a particular intent or state of mind is a necessary ingredient of the offence, and prime facie proof of the existence of the intent or state of mind has been given by the prosecution, the defendant may excuse himself by disproving the existence in him of any guilty intent of state of mind, for example by showing that he did it accidentally or in ignorance, or that he had an honest belief in the existence of facts which, if they had really existed, would have made the act an innocent one. The existence of reasonable grounds for a belief is evidence of the honesty of that belief".

Origin and Development of Mens rea (Mens Rea in England Law):

Coke traces the origin of the maim 'actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea to the Sermons of Augustin as rem linguam non facit nisimens rea. The author of 'Leges Henrici' picked it up from some intermediate work in which 'Linguam' may possibly have disappeared. In his institutes,     Coke categorically states the law as follows: "If one shoots at any wild fowl upon a tree, and the arrow killeth any reasonable creature, after all, without any evil intent in him, this is per infortunium." After Coke this maxim was taken in many English decision. Lord Kenyon, C.J. in Fowler v. Padget [(1798) 101 ER 1103] observed that "The intent and the act must both concur to constitute the crime ". Lord Arbinger in R.v. Allday [(1837) 8 C & P 136 at P 139] observed that "It is a maxim older than the Law of England that no man is guilty unless his mind is guilty".

            In olden days English Law was absolute the law made men answerable for all the their deeds may obviously bring upon their fellows The deed was responsible whether he acted innocently because he was the doer.

            The maxim of mens rea has been applied to all common law crimes in England without any reservations its applications its application to statutory offences was however uncertain for a long time. The application of mens rea in statutory offences may be explained through the following leading cases.  

            The Queen v. Prince [88 (1875) LRZ CCR 154 (HL)]

            Henry Prince was tired upon the charge of having unlawfully taken Annie Phillips, an unmarried girl under the age of 16, out of the possession and against the will of her father contrary to Section 55 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (in England). Which states whoever shell unlawfully taken any unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of the possession and against the will of her father or mother, or any other person having the lawful acre or charge of her, shall be guilty of a misdemenanour,"

            It was proved that the accused believed on reasonable grounds that the girl was above 16 and the jury found upon evidence that before the accused took her away she told him that she was 18, and that the accused bona fide believed that statement, and that such belief was reasonable. However, the lower Court convicted the accused and the House of Lords by majority of 15 to one, upheld the conviction.

            The Court though Blackburn J. rejected the contention on the part of the accused that the he bona fied believed and had reasonable ground for believing that the girl so taken by him was over 16 and held that the accused was guilty of misdemeanour (kidnapping) under Sec. 55 of the Offences Against Person Act, 1861.

In the judgement, Blackburn J observed, "But wat the statute contemplates and what I say wrong is, the taking of a female of such tender years that she is properly called a girl, and can be said to be in another's possession, in that other's are or charge. No argument is necessary to prove this; it is enough to state the case. The legislature has enacted that if anyone does this wrong act, he does it at the risk of her turning out to be under 16. This opinion gives full scope to doctrine of mens rea. It he taker believed he had the father's consent, though wrongly, he would have no mens rea. So it he did not known she was in any one 's possession, nor in the care charge of any one, in those case he would not know he was doing the act forbidden by the statute – an act which, if he knew she is in possession and the care or charge of any one, he would know was a crime or not, according she was under 16 of not. He would not know he was doing an act wrong in itself, whatever was his intention, if done without lawful cause.

            The Queen v. Tolson [(1889) 23 QBD 1068] the Case of the Queen v. Tolson is another important case on the subject of mens rea. Martha Ann Tolson married Tolson on 11 September 1818 Mr. Tolson deserted her on 13 December 1881 and went away. Mrs. Tolson and her father made inquiries about him and learn from his elder brother and from general reports there he had been lost in a vessel bound for America, which went down with all hands on board on 10 January 1887, Mrs. Tolson supposing herself to be widow, went through the ceremony for marriage with another man the circumstances were all known to second husband and the ceremony was in no way concealed. 1 December 1887, Tolson retuned from America prosecuted Mrs. Tolson bigamy.

            The accused was tried under section 57 of the offences against the Person Act 1861[of England], which states :"Whoever, being married shell marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife shell be guilty of felony, punishable with penal served for not more than seven years,  or imprisonment with or without hard labour for not more than two year; with proviso that :……noting in this Act shell extend to any person marring a second time whose husband or wife shell have been continuously absent from such person for the space of seven years last past , and shell been known by such person be living within that time".

            In the trial Court, the jury convicted Mrs. Tolson to one day's imprisonment on the ground that a belief in good faith and on reasonable facts about the death of the husband were no defence to the charge of bigamy. she appealed to the Court of Appeal Crown cases.

            The Court of Crown by majority of nine to five quashed the conviction on the ground that a bona fide belief about the death of the first husband at the time second marriage a good defence in the. Offences of bigamy. It also opined that the statutory limitation for a second marriage of seven years was completed at the time of the second marriage and she informed the real facts to the second husband.

            The Court further observed that it is, however, undoubtedly principal of English Criminal law, that ordinarily speaking a crime not committed if the mind of the person doing the act in questa be innocent. "it is a principal of natural justice and of our law," say Lord Kenyon CJ.in Fowler V Padger, "that act non facit reum fit mens sit rea: the intent act must both concer to constitute to crime".

            Rex v. Wheat & Stock [(1921) 2 KB 119]

            Rex v. Wheat & Stock the accused, who was an uneducated man handed over this case to his solicitor for obtaining divorce for his first wife. He was informed in good faith that he had been grant divorce and he got remarried. His first wife charged him for bigamy he pleaded that he did not know the procedure of law and he believe that he obtained divorce and with bona fide intention he married another lady. The Court held him guilty of bigamy and convicted him because the reasonable belief about the dissolution of marriage would be it defence of charge bigamy, unless the divorce would be obtained from a Court of law. The principal applied in the case are that the accused did an act which was forbidden by law, though he did it by mistake of law, (ii) there is a presumption that mens rea avil intention are knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act is an essential ingredient in every offence, and(iii) the Doctrine of mens rea was resurrected and mode applicable not only common law offence but also to all statutory offences.

            In Dudley v.Stephens case [(1884) 14 Q BD 273], it was observed, at , a man , in ordered escape death from hunger on high seas kills another for the purpose of his flesh, the guilty of murdered although at the time of the act he is in such circumstances that he believes and has reasonable ground for believing  thatit affordes the only chance of preserving his life.

            In R. v. Martinc [(1989) 1 All ER 6529 (A),] the accused was charged with driving whilst disqualified ,sought to raise necessity as a defence the defendant argued that he was forced it drive his wife to so to his work place under the threat of his wife committing suicide unless. He drove her to her son's workplace. The trail court convicted him considering that necessity was no defence to an absolute offence. On appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and observed the principle that the defence is available only. If the defendant can be objectively said to be acting reasonably and preparationately to avoid the threat of death or serious injury.

            The above case laws of England make it clear that there had been a confusion with regard to the application of the doctrine of mens rea in statutory offences. Therefore, the doctrine has been resurrected and has been made applicable not only to common law offences, but also to statutory offences.

Mens Rea in Indian Law:

            The term 'mens rea' is not mentioned anywhere in the Indian Penal Code. Though 'mens rea' is an essential ingredient of an offence, it is not essential in respect of certain offences viz waging war (Sec. 121) Sedition (Sec. 124A), Kidnapping (Sec. 759), abduction (SEC. 363), Counterfeit of coins (Sec. 232) etc. of Indian Penal Code.

            Ratanlal & Dhirajlal observe that the maxim 'actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea' ahs no application to the offences under the penal Code, because the definition of various offences contain expressly a preposition as to the state of mind of the accused."

            According to Mayne, "Under Penal Code a maxim (mens rea) is wholly out of place. Every offence is defined and the definition states not only hat the accused must have done, but the state of his mind with regard also to the act when he was doing it. It must have been done 'knowingly', voluntary', fraudulently', 'dishonesty', or the like…"

            Almost all the offences under the IPC are qualified by one or the other words such as 'wrongful gain or wrongful loss (S. 23), dishonestly (S. 24), fraudulently (S. 25), 'reason to believe (S.26), criminal knowledge or intention (s. 35), intentional cooperation (S. 37), maliciously (Ss. 219 & 220). All these words indicate the blameworthy mental condition required at the time of commission of the offence in order to constitute an offence. Thus though the words 'mens rea' as such are nowhere found in the IPC, its essence is reflected in almost all the provisions of the IPC, 1860. Every offence created under the IPC virtually imports the idea of criminal intent or mans rea in some from or other.

            In Girija Nath v. State [ILR (1954) 2 All 215] it was observed that "mens rea is a loose term of elastic signification and covers a wide range of mental status and conditions, the existence of which would give a criminal to live to actus reus. Sometimes it is used to refer to  foresight of the consequence of the act and at other times to act per se irrespective of its consequences. In some case it stands for a criminal intention of the 'deepest dye' (i.e., a villain or scoundrel of the worst kind) such as is visible in a designed and premeditated murder committed with a full foresight of its fatal consequences. In other cases, it connotes mental conditions of a weaker shade such as are indicated by words like knowledge, belief, criminal negligence or even rashness in disregard of consequences of the act itself irrespective of the consequences of it, or, in other words, a bare capacity to know what one is doing as contrasted, for example, with a condition of insanity  or intoxication which a man is unable to know the nature of the act".

            The Supreme Court of India, on more than one occasions, has reiterated that unless a statute, either clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent art of crime, a person should not be found guilty of an offence, if he does not have a guilty mind.

            In Stat of Gujarat v. D.P. Panday [AIR 1971 SC 866 P. 868], the Supreme Court Observed thus : "The board principles accepted by Courts in this country as well as in England are : When an offence is created by a statute, however comprehensive and unqualified the language of the statute, it is usually understood as silently requiring that the element of mens rea should be imported into the definition of the crimes, unless a contrary intention is expressed or implied. In other words, the plain words of the general rule of law that no crime cab be committed unless there is mens rea, has not been ousted by the particular enactment".

            As per the IPC mens rea may be of any of the following forms

            Intention : Intention means a purpose or desire to bring about a contemplated result or foresight that certain consequence will follow from the conduct of the person. Intention is the conscious exercise of the mental faculty of a person to do an act, for the purpose of accomplishing or satisfying a purpose. The term 'intention' is expressed also by words such as 'voluntarily', 'wilfully', 'deliberately', 'deliberate intention', with the purpose of, or 'knowingly' in the various sections of the IPC.

            Voluntarily : The word 'voluntarily' has a more extended meaning than the word 'intentionally'. As per Section 9 of the IPC, "a person is said to cause an effect voluntarily when he causes it by means, which at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it".

            Fraudulently : According to Section 25 of the IPC " A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise".

            Dishonestly : Section 24 of the IPC provides that "whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, in said to do that thing 'dishonestly'.

            With knowledge : Knowledge is awareness on the part of the person concerned, indicating his state of mind. Knowledge in an awareness of what he is doing and the consequences of the acts knowledge is the state of mind entertained by a person with regard to existing facts which he has himself observed or the existence of which has been communicated to him by persons whose veracity h has no reason to doubt.

            Corruptly : Corruptly denotes impropriety brought about by bribery, undue influence resulting in acts which are not consistent with the proper discharge of official duty or the right of others. The words 'Corrupt' and 'Corruptly' usually imply that an act is done dishonestly without integrity for the sake of unlawful gain or advantage.

            Malignantly : An act done with a desire to hurt with a deep- rooted ill will or do harm to life violently.

            Maliciously : Russel defines 'malice to be any formed design of doing mischief. Miller says that malice is a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse. Malice in its ordinary sense means any wicked or mischievous intention, a depraved inclination to mischief or a wanton disregard of the safety and rights of others. A thing is done 'maliciously', if it is done wickedly or in a depraved, perverse or malignant spirit or in a spirit regardless of social duty and deliberately bent on mischief.

            Wantonly : Wantonly means doing a thing recklessly or thoughtlessly without regard to its consequence. It implies a state of mind that is heedless, without excuse, regardless of the rights of others, and perverse.

            Negligence : It does not denote evil intent but denotes that want of care with people of reasonable prudence are excepted to act and the want of which is culpable. In case of negligence the party does not perform an act to which he is obliged; he breaks a positive duty, he does not advert to the act which it is his duty to do. A person is negligent if he fails to exercise such care, skill or foresight as a reasonable man in his situation would exercise.

            Rashly : In rashness, the party does an act which he is bound to forbear; he acts hastely. Here he adverts to the act but not to the consequence of the act he does.

            In Indian Penal Code the words 'rashly' and 'negligently' are used together. The question of liability for negligence or rashness cannot arise until it is established that the man who has been negligent owned some duty to the person who seeks to make him liable for his negligence. For the purpose of criminal law, a very high degree of negligence is required before the felony is established.

Case Law:

               (1) In Srinivasamall v. Emperor [AIR 1947 PC 135], The accused Srinvasmall was a salt distributor. His servant infringed a rule for his negligence. for the purpose of criminal law, a very high degree of negligence is required before the felony is established.

            (2) In Ravula Hari Prasad Rao v. State [AIR 1951 SC 204] a servant of a dealer supplied motor spirit without coupons and also received advance coupons without supplying motor spirit which was an offence under the Motor Rationing Order, 1941. The Supreme Court held that there were no grounds for conviction of the master especially when he was not present at the time of delivery of the spirit. He however was convicted for non-endorsement on coupons by his servant which was mandatory and an absolute rule. Non-observance of such statutory rules was punishable even without mens rea.

            (3) In Sankaran Sukumaran v. Krishna Saraswalthi [1984 CrLJ 317], the Supreme Court observed that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 494 (Bigamy), where the second marriage has been entered in a bona fide belief that the first marriage was not subsisting, no offence under Section 494 is committed.

            (4) In Stall of Maharashtra v. M.H. George, the Supreme Court considered the application of the principle of mens rea in statutory offence, M.H. George carried gold bars on person as a passenger from Zurich of Manila in a Swiss plane and found at Bombay airport as the bringing of gold into India was prohibited except with permission of RBI. The Presidency Magistrate found him guilty but the Bombay High Court held that he was not guilty on the ground that mens rea being a necessary ingredient in the offence, the respondent who bought gold into India for transit to Manila did not know that during the crucial period such a condition had been imposed which brought the case within the terms of the state. On appeal by the State, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and found the accused guilty for contravention of the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.

            (5) In Nathu Lal v. State of MP [ALR 1966 SC 43] the appellant has a stock of wheat for the purpose of sale without licensing. He contended that he had stored the foodgrains after applying for the licensing and was in the belief that it would be issued to him. He had also deposited the requisite licensing fee. He was purchasing foodgrains from time to time sending returns to the Licensing Authority showing the grains purchased by him. He was prosecuted for committing an offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for contravening an order made under Section 3 of the same Act, in this case, the Court held that the storage of foodgrains was under a bona field belief that he could legal do so and he did not intentionally contravene the Act. He was acquitted.

            (6) In R.S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills Ltd., [(1977) 4 SCC 94], the Supreme Court observed that a person may be liable for the penal consequences for the at done by him whether he has done it with guilty mind or not. It is matter of common knowledge that for proper enforcement of statutory provision, the rule of strict liability is created and the acts failing in this category are punished even in the absence of guilty mind.

            (7) In Malhan K.A. v. Kora Bibi Kutti [(1996) SCC 281], the accused was a financier. He seized a vehicle for which he financed but did not receive the instalments. The person from whom the vehicle was seized complained to police alleging that the accused had stolen has totally wanting in his vehicle. The Supreme Court held that the element of mens rea is totally wanting in this case and the element of mens rea is under Section 379 of the IPC.

4.         Injury:

            The last element of crime is injury. Injury means to cause harm to any person in body, mind, reputation or property. The act by which injury is caused must be an illegal act. Section 44 of the IPC states: the word 'injury' denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.

            Thus, these are four elements namely, (i) human being, (ii) actus reus; (iii) mens rea; and (iv) injury. However, there are some exceptions to this. There are some crimes without accompanied with guilty mind. There are cause of strict liability such as an offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC. There are crimes even though the actus reus has not been constituted. That means cases where no injury has been caused to any person. There are the cases of inchoate crimes, for example attempt, abetment and conspiracy. There may be a crime when there is neither actus reus nor injury to a human being foe example the offence of making preparation to commit dacoity under Section 399 and assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity under Section 402 of the IPC.