Understanding the concept of Mens Rea in Indian Criminal Law – All you need to know.

Introduction

If Amir, a mentally-ill person, attacks others with heavy objects and causes them grave injuries, would he be liable for causing grievous hurt? Absolutely not! In Indian criminal law, Mens rea plays a fundamental role in determining the guilt of a person. Amir, in this case, lacks the real intention to cause harm. Being a person of unsound mind, he was incapable of understanding the nature and the consequences of his actions and therefore, lacked a guilty mind – mens rea. Section 22 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 exempts acts done by a person of unsound mind from liability on this principle.

This principle is recognized in the maxim ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’. It says an act alone does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were so. Thereby meaning, a person must have wrongful intention to commit a crime for being guilty of an offence.

What makes Amir innocent is the absence of “mens rea”. ‘Mens rea’ is a Latin term which means “guilty mind”. Thus, an action coupled with a guilty mind (i.e. mens rea) to commit a crime makes an accused liable for punishment. There are essentially two components to prove one’s guilt. These are:
1) Mens rea (the guilty intention);
2) Actus reus (the act or the manifestation of that intention into actions/ the guilty act)

Thus, without a guilty mind, even a harmful act may escape punishment, as the law values moral blameworthiness as much as physical wrongdoing.

Actus reus and Mens rea
Except for certain offences, actus reus (a guilty act) without mens rea is not a crime and vice versa. These two are the essential components to be proved for the conviction of an accused and making him criminally liable. If there is no act, there cannot be a criminal liability based solely on mens rea. Similarly, if an act is done accidently/ innocently or in good faith, he cannot be held liable for his acts. The legality of the concept is acknowledged in General Exceptions of the BNS,2023 (Sec 17, 22, 23 etc.).

This article explains the concept of mens rea in Indian criminal law. It explores its meaning, origin, importance, statutory recognition, degrees, judicial interpretations, exceptions like strict liability, and its growing relevance in modern crimes such as cyber and corporate offences.

Meaning and Origin of Mens Rea in Indian Criminal Law
 
Meaning of Mens Rea

‘Mens Rea’ is a Latin term where ‘Mens’ means mind and ‘Rea’ means guilty. Literally, it means ‘guilty mind.’ That is refers to one’s intention or the mental state of the person that forms the basis of committing a crime. Mens rea is the ‘willingness’ to do the crime. It is the mental state that facilitated the person to commit a crime.

Origin of Mens Rea

Initially, persons were held liable solely on the basis of ‘actus reus’ with no prior proof of intent. The concept of intention came to recognition later in Ancient Roman Law. Therefore, the concept of ‘mens rea’ has its genesis from the doctrines of Roman Law i.e. dolus (intent) and cupla (intention). These doctrines emphasized the importance of one’s mental state behind an unlawful act i.e. his psychological disposition.

By 12^th century, this principle started getting wide acceptance thus, culminating into its crystallization in a Latin maxim ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ meaning, an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty, in 17^th century. This maxim became the cornerstone of the present criminal justice system.

Thereafter, this principle was borrowed from English rule and implemented to Indian criminal laws when Lord Macaulay proposed Indian Penal Code, 1860. Though, the word mens rea was not explicitly mentioned but was indirectly imported with the use of terms like intentionally, knowingly, fraudulently etc. This is further carried to new legislation which replaces IPC that is, the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Importance of Mens Rea in Indian Criminal Law

Mens rea in Indian criminal law is prominent in every aspect as it establishes the mental element for convicting a person and making him liable for punishment under criminal law. It ensures fairness and justice in its true sense by assessing the moral blameworthiness or the innocent/ accidental accidents from conviction of offences following severe punishments. To simplify, if a person of an unsound mind commits a crime, he must not be held liable for his unlawful act. This is a valid justification to escape his liability for his acts. The concept of mens rea in Indian criminal law
promotes fairness and prevents misuse of provisions thereby, ensuring that justice is served in its true and real sense.
Mens rea establishes the distinction among various offences in BNS, and therefore, ensuring that the punishment is proportional to the severity of the crime one commits. For example, a killing someone with the intention/ knowledge to cause his death constitutes murder whereas killing someone without mens rea is a Culpable homicide/ Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Degrees and Types of Mens Rea in Indian criminal law

The four degrees of mens rea under BNS, 2023 are – Intention, Knowledge, Recklessness and Negligence. It is imperative to note that the degree of mens rea is directly proportional to the level of punishment/ criminal liability. Thus, if H intentionally stabs W thrice in her heart and kills her. It is the first degree of mens rea and will bring severe punishment, that is death or imprisonment for life.
Degrees of Mens rea are elucidated below:

Intention
  Intention refers to one’s conscious decision to do a certain act. Intention is the willingness of the person to commit an act when one is fully aware of its effect or its aftermath result. For example, if a person ‘wants’ to turn off the laptop, he will ‘intentionally’, ‘purposefully’ and ‘deliberately’ click the shutdown button which in ‘effect’ will switch off the laptop. Likewise, H’s active willingness to kill W by stabbing thrice demonstrates his  guilty intention.
The doctrine of Mens rea is embedded in BNS in expressions like ‘voluntarily’, ‘deliberate intention’, ‘willfully’, ‘deliberately’, ‘with the purpose of ’ etc.
Section  2(34) says “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.”

Knowledge

Knowledge is the awareness of one’s actions and the following result/ its repercussions. Knowledge is the awareness that harm may occur even if there is no specific intention to cause harm. When a person knows that their activities are likely to bring a certain outcome, that is called ‘knowledge’. For instance, Kshitij, a food supplier, knowingly supplies adulterated food that ultimately resulted in massive hospitalizations. Here, Kshitij may not have the intention to cause harm to his consumers or his intention is just to earn profits. But he will be liable under the second degree of mens rea as he had the knowledge that it may cause harm to the health of consumers.

Recklessness

Recklessness means deliberate disregard to the risks one undertakes. For example, ‘A’ knows over-speeding on a busy road is risky and dangerous but he still does so. In this kind of mens rea, a person is aware of the risks but he still ignores them. This is the third degree of mens rea.

Negligence
This is the lowest degree of mens rea where a person fails to take reasonable care/ show due diligence which he was obliged to take under a legal duty. It entails failure to recognize a threat/ danger. A person acting under negligence neither intends nor foresee the harm. Careless medical treatment is a classic example.

Statutory Recognition of Mens Rea in BNS

Mens Rea is statutorily recognized under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Indian criminal law has incorporated Mens rea in various provisions through terms like intention, knowledge, negligence in BNS and other legislations like Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, National Security Act, 1980 etc.  The provisions dealing with mens rea under BNS, 2023 are as listed below:

Section 100 defines Culpable Homicide. It says that when a person with the intention of causing death/ with the intention to cause bodily injury that is likely to cause/ with knowledge that by such act he is likely to cause death, such person commits the offence of Culpable Homicide.

Section 101 defines Murder as intentionally causing death. The crucial element is the intention and sufficient knowledge that his action will cause death.

Section 106 of BNS talks about causing death by doing any rash or negligent act and its culpability.

Section 316 criminalizes the offence of criminal misappropriation of property that is dishonest misappropriation  or has the intention to convert the property to one’s own use.

Section 318 explains cheating in which the accused must dishonestly or fraudulently with intention deceives is liable for cheating.

These sections explicitly employ terms like intention, negligence, knowledge etc. thus, embodying the principle of mens rea in Indian criminal law.

Exceptions: Strict liability and Absolutely Liability offence

There are certain offences which do not acknowledge the concept of mens rea. Though importance of mens rea in Indian criminal law is undisputed, there is a category of offences that does not require the element of mens rea for holding its encroachers responsible. These are based on public policy and thus for public welfare. These exceptions are: Offences of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability

Offences of Strict Liability

A strict liability does not require existence of some mental element for the commission of an offence. The act is punishable by virtue of its happening and does not consider if there was any specific intent/ knowledge or presence of any degree of mens rea.
The rule of strict liability was first propounded in the case of Rylands vs Fletcher where a mill owner constructed a reservoir on his land but the water escaped from the old mine shafts and flooded the coal mines belonging to Fletcher. Justice Blackburn led to the genesis of this rule where Rylands was made liable strictly for the offence though mens rea was absent.
 
This concept greatly influenced Indian law. One of the landmark cases is State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (AIR 1965 SC 722). In this case, a person imported gold to India without declaring so. Such declaration was necessary by virtue of a government notification in this regard. Hon’ble Supreme Court held him liable and pronounced that mens rea could be excluded where a statute imposes a duty in the interest of public welfare.

Offences of Absolute Liability

Strict liability is based on public policy, helps in ensuring regulatory compliance, adherence to laws etc. However, this rule had certain exceptions. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of MC Mehta vs Union of India (1987) (also known as Oleum Gas Leak Case) expounded the principle of absolute liability thus making a groundbreaking departure from the rule laid in the case Rylands v Fletcher. Chief Justice Bhagwati realized the need for change in this rule in light of modern developments and held “An enterprise which is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an “an absolute and non-delegable duty” to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has undertaken.”

Therefore, the rule of Absolutely Liability was formulated in the said judgement thereby dispensing the prosecution from the burden of proving mens rea to convict the law-breaker.

Case Laws on Mens rea in India

Nathulal vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1965)
Nathulal, a licensed food-grain dealer applied for a permit to purchase wheat. On genuine belief that he has got the license he procured some wheat, however, due to administrative delay the license was not officially issued while purchasing wheat. He was held on trial under Essential Commodities Act. In this case, Nathulal was acquitted since supreme court stated that there was no mens rea and Nathulal acted in good faith. Thus, he is liable for acquittal.

Ravule Hariprasada Rao vs State (1951)
The Supreme Court in Ravule Hariprasada Rao vs State held that a person cannot be held criminally liable without mens rea unless mens rea is excluded either explicitly or by necessary implication.

Mens Rea in Contemporary Crimes

The concept of Mens rea continues to play a decisive role in the assessment of one’s liability in modern day crimes like cybercrimes, crimes in corporate world, etc. Several provisions of Information and Technology Act, 2000 requires the proof of intent/ knowledge to convict a person (Sec 66, 66C & 66D).

Initially, it was hard to incorporate the concept of mens rea in corporate liability as a company is an artificial entity and cannot have a guilty mind. But the seminal case Iridium India Telecom Ltd. vs Motorola Inc. (2010)14 SCC 74 Supreme Court expanded India’s traditional approach to mens rea by augmenting its scope to the representatives of the companies like Directors, manager, the one who is responsible for carrying business, etc. SC stated that such companies/ corporations can held be criminally liable by actions of its controlling individuals if they have a guilty mind.

Standard Chattered Bank vs Directorate Enforcement 2016 SCC online SC 816
The Supreme Court of India in this case extended culpability to economic-money laundering statutes, thus further elaborated the concept of mens rea by bringing it in lines with the modern developments.


Reliance Home Finance Ltd. vs Union of India 2023 SCC online Bom 402
Iridium judgement was cited by Bombay high court while evaluating the corporate liabililiy under the companies act, 2013. The court reaffirmed that corporations can have requisite intent to defraud others.

Conclusion

Mens rea continues to be one of the fundamental factors in determining the guilt of a person. Without a guilty mind, a person cannot be convicted for his acts only. However, with the changing needs of the society, there are certain exceptions being carved out, Like offences of strict liability and absolute liability. Mens rea has been further elaborated in the contemporary times with further judicial pronouncements as discussed above.

About Author

Nikita Verma, a law student at Punjab School of Law, Punjabi University, Patiala, is a budding legal writer with a keen interest on thoroughly evaluating the evolving legal landscapes. Interested in Criminal law, Corporate law, Constitutional law, ADR, IPR etc. Nikita actively explores contemporary legal nuances through reading, writing and research.

FAQs

1. What is mens rea under Indian criminal law?

Mens rea means the guilty intention or mental state behind a criminal act. It’s essential to prove intention, knowledge, or recklessness before holding someone criminally liable.

2. Is mens rea necessary for all offences in India?

No. Some offences, like public nuisance, environmental violations, or food adulteration, follow strict or absolute liability where mens rea is not required.

3. How is mens rea different from actus reus?

Mens rea refers to the mental element (intention), while actus reus refers to the physical act. Both must coexist for a crime to occur.

4. What are the recent developments regarding mens rea in India?

Courts have started recognizing mens rea in cyber and corporate crimes, adapting the traditional principles to fit digital and organizational contexts.

References Link

1. https://www.ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR23B1007.pdf

2. https://blog.ipleaders.in/all-you-need-to-know-about-mens-rea/#What_is_the_concept_of_mens_rea_in_Indian_criminal_law

3. https://ugcmoocs.inflibnet.ac.in/assets/uploads/1/175/5758/et/22200309050503031616.pdf