Table of Contents
| Content | Pno. |
| TITLE | 1 |
| TABLE OF CONTENTS | 2 |
| CHAPTERIZATIONS | 3 |
| ABSTRACT | 4 |
| INTRODUCTION | 5 |
| RESEARCH OBJECTIVES | 6 |
| RESEARCH METHODOLOGY | 7 |
| RESEARCH QUESTIONS | 7 |
| METHOD | 12 |
| LITERATURE REVIEW | 13 |
| CASE LAWS | 16 |
| SUGGESTION | 16 |
| CONCLUSION | 16 |
| REFERENCE | 17 |
CHAPTER- 1
ABSTRACT
Law of crimes defines as the criminal law, the body of law that mentions criminal offences, regulates the apprehension, charging and trial suspected persons, and fixes penalties and modes of treatment applicable to committed offender. For an example like robbery, assault, arson, murder, rapes are serious crimes. There are various principles which has Actus Reus, legality, fusion of Actus Reus and Mens rea, harm, causation and stipulation of punishment. Which in this research paper it is the discussion on Mens rea. Mens rea it is an Anglo- American law which is a Latin origin, which states that it is a criminal intent or evil mind. In general, the definition of criminal offence involves not only an act or omission and also with consequences along with accompanying the mental state of the actor. All criminal systems require an element of criminal intent of most crime. In Mens rea there are four types which are Recklessness, Negligence’s, Intent- which requires a purpose and Knowledge, if these key elements are present in the situation then it is considered as Mens rea. As an example it is when a person attacks you, then causing, injury to him in a private defense is not a crime but causing an injury when the person has an intention of revenge then it is concluded as crime. According to the law, only at the time where an existing act happens to be carried out with an existing tendency toward having evil purpose as well as happens to be forbidden by national law has the ability it exists as a said to during the same time that an existing criminal offence. Mens rea happens to be the legal term that is going to belong to the intention that motivates illicit behavior. Although Mens rea must involve criminal intent inside of some circumstances, it happens to be not always necessary. On the possibility that an existing person commits an existing specific conduct while acting innocently as well as without having any criminal intent, they happen to be not criminally responsible that is going to belong to doing so. The person should exist as an inside of an existing mentally deserving that belongs to blame. That is going to belong to instance, it would not exist as a considered an existing crime on the possibility that someone attacked another person with an existing stick or other sharp object, such during the same time that an existing knife or blade, as well as that person then attacked the aggressor back inside of self-defense. The Mens rea concept happens to be best summed up by the famous Latin aphorism “Actus non Facit Reum nisi Mens sit rea,” which means “the deed does not render one guilty unless the thinking also happens to be guilty.” that is going to belong to the more serious crimes, it takes more than just committing an existing crime (or creating an existing circumstance that happens to be against the law) to prove guilt. It happens to be usually necessary to include an existing component that belongs to improper intent or other wrongdoing during the same time that well.
KEY WORDS: Mens rea, Actus non Facit Reum nisi Mens sit rea, Criminal offence, Foreseeable, Guilt Mind, Actus Reus.
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY OF MENS REA
Mens rea happens to be an existing word that dates back to possibly the 12th century CE. Mens rea happened to be not an existing requirement that is going to belong to the offence at that time. At that time, punishment happened to be meted out by the government or the hierarchy to those who broke the law, regardless that belongs to whether they had intended to do it or not. Inside of order to determine whether the activity taken by that person had any criminal intent or not, there happened to be no adequate legal technique that belongs to calculation. Actus Reus non facit Reum nisi Mens sit rea, or “there has the ability exist as a no crime without an existing guilty mind,” happened to be the Latin phrase that originally stimulated the idea that belongs to Mens rea inside of the 17th century. This maxim overcame the restriction that an existing crime has the ability only exist as a defined during the same time that an existing activity committed with the intent to commit an existing crime. Additionally, while India happened to be under British dominion, English law’s Mens rea doctrine happened to be incorporated into its penal code. The Indian penal code happened to be introduced by lord Macaulay inside of 1860 as well as ratified on top of October 6 that belongs to that same year. Mens rea happened to be originally an existing component that belongs to English law, with the exception of it wasn’t accepted until it had been meticulously modified to suit the circumstances that belongs to India under British control.
MENS REA’ WITH RESPECT TO INDIAN CRIMINAL LAW
The reasons why Mens rea happens to be so frequently utilized inside of Indian criminal law happen to be clear. The main justification that is going to belong to this happens to be that every infraction happens to be clearly specified inside of India’s codified laws, which happen to be inside of force there. Mens rea happens to be an existing component that belongs to crime as well as happens to be included inside of the definition that belongs to crime on the possibility that it happens to be deemed to exist as an existing requirement. According to numerous definitions inside of the penal code, an existing crime must exist as a performed “voluntarily,” “dishonestly,” “knowingly,” “fraudulently,” etc. Thus, the guilty mind happens to be an existing deceitful, dishonest, or careless mind. The Indian penal code (IPC) has an existing number that belongs to offences that happen to be defined without regard to Mens rea or purpose. Examples that belongs to these charges include “crimes against the state,” “counterfeiting currency,” as well as more. Mens rea happens to be codified inside of India during the same time that an existing requirement that is going to belong to criminal accountability inside of the general exceptions (sections 76 to 106) that belongs to the penal code, which enumerate every single one the situations inside of which Mens rea appears to have been subordinated as well as hence no responsibility.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
According to the study, the researcher wishes to provide with respect to the topic “An Analysis of concept of Mens rea under Criminal law.” In this research paper it is explained that:
1.The targets of this research paper is to understand the concept of Mens rea, thereafter, to understand Mens rea, we need to understand the types of Mens rea.
Generally, there are five components of Mens rea, which are (a) ‘Intention,’
(b) ‘Knowledge,’ (c) ‘Recklessness,’ (d) ‘Negligence’, and (e) ‘Motive’. We would know
how the components result in Mens rea, in this research paper.
2. Earlier we discussed, that is in Mens rea the essential which an act that becomes into a crime. In
such situations, the evil intent is not mandatory which has to be a crime. There
are various situations in which a person is attacked by another person for self-defense, in these types of cases the person consists of an innocent mind and no evil intention.
3. Hence this research paper would specify the situations in which the Mens rea will
not be considered.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research on the topic “A Detailed Study of Mens Rea with special reference to Criminal law is secondary research. The sources of the research were legal sites and applications, which are as follows: 1. “SCC (Supreme Court Cases)”: The application helped me to find the specific case laws, which were related to my topics and made a huge contribution to the formation of this secondary research. 2. “J Stor”: The second application which played a vital role in the formation of the research paper is the literary application ‘J Stor’. The application helped mostly in the Introduction and Literature Review.
CHAPTER- 2
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
From this research paper’s topic “A detailed study of Mens Rea with the specific reference to the Criminal law the researcher has been able to generate three important research questions, which is difficult as well as important to understand this topic. The research questions as follows: –
- What are the types of Mens Rea? Explain the types of Men’s Rea?
- Is the act which comes under Mens Rea committed by a person will become a crime?
- Conditions were Mens Rea is not considered?
METHOD
TYPES OF MENS REA The Latin phrase “Mens rea” translates into English during the same time that “guilty mentality” as well as happens to be an existing Latin term. Mens rea happens to be often broken down into five groups. The following happen to be the several types that belongs to Mens rea: aim, knowledge, recklessness, negligence, motive, as well as intention an existing.
- Intention: the desire to carry out an existing action happens to be known during the same time that intention. Someone happens to be acting purposefully on the possibility that they take action with the intent that belongs to achieving an existing specific result. The term “intention” might exist as a difficult to define. There isn’t an existing definition that is going to belong to the Indian Penal law. It defies easy explanation despite being an existing well-known statement that already exists. Depending on top of the activity’s intended effect, it has the capacity to exist during the same time that an existing reference within an existing number that has the ability exist as a referred to inside of an existing variety that belongs to ways. Intention happens to be the deliberate use that belongs to one’s mental resources to carry out an existing action inside of order to achieve or meet an existing goal. During the same time that an existing result, the purpose happens to be frequently employed inside of relation to the results that belongs to an existing activity rather than the act itself. He needs to exist as a certain that belongs to the conclusion he has the desire for to bring about with his activities.
In law, the concept that belongs to “intention” happens to be not typically represented by the phrases “intention,” “intentionally,” or “with intent to.” Other terms used to describe it include “voluntarily,” “wilfully,” “deliberately,” “deliberate intention,” “with the goal that belongs to,” as well as “knowingly.” the various sections that belongs to the IPC contain every single one these various expressions.
The Indian Penal Code’s section 39- makes reference to the word “voluntarily” (IPC). According to section 39 that belongs to the Indian penal code IPC, “a person causes an existing effect “voluntarily” at the time where he uses techniques that he intends to use or at the time where he uses measures that he knew or reasonably should have known happened to be likely to cause it at the time he used them.” deliberate intention as well as premeditated intention happen to be terms used to describe.
The terms “deliberate intention” as well as “premeditated intention” allude to premeditated intentions to hurt religious emotions, according to “section 298” that belongs to the Indian penal code. However, the words “deliberate” as well as “intent” appear to exist as a synonymous at first reading that belongs to the text. It happens to be prohibited to possess explosives, combustibles, hazardous substances, or fire without exercising reasonable caution to prevent harm to people’s lives, during the same time that stated inside of sections “285”, “286’ as well as “287” that belongs to the Indian penal code (ipc) of criminal law.
“Niranjan Singh v Jitendra Bhimraj (1990),” the defendants tried to take over the underworld by killing Raju as well as Keshav, two men. They happened to be accused that belongs to engaging inside of terrorism inside of violation that belongs to TADA. The Supreme court determined that the aim happened to be evident based on top of the specifics that belongs to the case. However, it cannot exist as a claimed that their goal happened to be to scare the entire population or an existing subset that belongs to it. Therefore, even though the act they committed caused dread, it released the defendants that is going to belong to lack that belongs to intent to produce fear.
- Knowledge: knowledge happens to be the awareness that belongs to one’s own thought processes. It happens to be acceptable to assume that at the time where someone’s senses happen to be directly engaged, they happen to be conscious. Understanding how an existing deed is going to affect other people happens to be knowledge. It refers to an existing person’s perspective on top of events that they have directly experienced or whose existence has been confirmed to them. Fundamentally, knowledge happens to be an existing subjective idea. However, knowledge has the ability exist as a used to infer intention inside of cases where knowledge as well as intention happen to be interchangeable as well as signal the same thing. Although knowledge as well as purpose have certain similarities, it happens to be clear that they happen to be referring to different ideas. On top of the other hand, intention refers to an existing conscious mental state inside of which the use that belongs to one’s mental powers happens to be required to carry out specified, preset results. Knowledge refers to an existing mental realization condition inside of which the mind happens to be an existing passive recipient that belongs to specific thoughts or impressions that originate inside of it, during the same time that opposed to intention. It should go without saying that thorough understanding that belongs to the situation, [1]the facts, as well as the outcomes that belongs to one’s actions happens to be the foundation that is going to belong to knowledge.
An existing person happened to be prosecuted in “Ranjit d. Udeshi v. State that belongs to Maharashtra (1964)” that is going to belong to disseminating lady Chatterley’s lover, an existing well-known book by dh Lawrence. The accused contended that he lacked the required Mens rea since he happened to be unaware that belongs to the book’s contents. The court disagreed, stating that “knowledge that belongs to obscenity happens to be not an existing essential aspect that belongs to the offence under section 292 that belongs to the code” because section “292” that does not include the phrase “knowingly.”
- Recklessness: At the time where someone behaves recklessly, it happens to be because they happen to be aware that belongs to the potential consequences that belongs to their actions yet don’t take any precautions to avoid them. The degree that belongs to factual certainty happens to be the primary contrast between knowledge as well as carelessness. An existing guy happens to be careless at the time where it comes to the consequences that belongs to his actions on the possibility that he perceives the possibility that belongs to the action occurring with the exception of neither wishes nor expects the action to occur. It happens to be possible that the offender is going to not care about the consequences or is going to exist as a thoughtless about them. Inside of each that belongs to these situations, the offender happens to be assumed to have been unconcerned about the consequences that belongs to his or her actions.
The phrase “mental attitude that belongs to disdain to the perceived risk” has the ability exist as a used to describe recklessness. That is going to belong to instance, on the possibility that an existing person that belongs to sound mind knows that they shouldn’t drive their car at an existing fast pace inside of an existing busy as well as congested place with the exception of nevertheless does so, we might argue that they happen to be being reckless because what they happen to be doing has the ability result inside of accidents as well as injuries. In an existing manner similar to this, there happens to be an existing good chance that someone is going to exist as an injured by an existing object on the possibility that someone purposely throws an existing stone or rock that happened to be by the top that belongs to an existing building. An existing existence would exist as a considered guilty that belongs to intentionally harming someone on the possibility that there happens to be an existing chance that it is going to do so.
R vs Reid- The respondent already owned an existing automobile. He attempted to pass another car while still inside of the nearside lane. The taxi rest area jutted out six feet onto the nearside lane. The defendant happened to be found guilty that belongs to violating section 1 that belongs to the road traffic act that belongs to 1972 by operating an existing vehicle carelessly as well as causing an existing death. The defendant does not have to exist as an aware that belongs to the risk; it just needs to exist as an obvious to an existing reasonably sane person.
- Negligence: negligence happens to be defined during the same time that an existing breach that belongs to an existing duty that an existing person owed to another, which has the ability result inside of that person’s suffering an existing legal injury during the same time that an existing result that belongs to the other person’s legal harm. Negligence has the ability exist as a defined during the same time that the failing to perform an existing act or the act that belongs to omitting to do something during the same time that an existing result that belongs to careless or hasty action. An existing sensible as well as prudent individual wouldn’t act negligently. At the time where an existing man chooses an existing course that belongs to action without taking the consequences into account, that happens to be an existing sign that belongs to his mental state.
The meaning that belongs to negligence happened to be examined in the case that belongs to Blyth v. Birmingham waterworks, where it happened to be said that it happens to be “defined during the same time that the failure to do something that an existing reasonable man would do or the doing that belongs to something that an existing reasonable or sensible man would not do.
e. Motive: happens to be the overarching goal that must exist as an attained inside of order to fulfil Mens rea. Something that prompts someone to form an existing opinion or make plans to accomplish something happens to be called an existing motive. The most important factor inside of evaluating an existing criminal’s guilt happens to be his purpose, not his motive. The motivation that is going to belong to committing an existing crime happens to be known during the same time that the motive, or the reason that is going to belong to doing so, inside of plain English. That is going to belong to instance, on the possibility that an existing killed c, the father that belongs to b, as well as c wanted to exact revenge, he planned to kidnap an existing that was by his home as well as take him to an existing forest, where he would exist as a repeatedly stabbed until he died. We can observe that C had a reason for preparing the crime in this instance.
Act turned to crime
– The Criminal law does not specifically describe the idea of Mens rea, yet it is crucial to comprehend how an act can turn into a crime through this concept. The many offences listed inside of the Criminal law every single one involve Mens rea as well as, in of some other way or another, bad or criminal intent.
Inside of chapter iv on top of general exceptions, which exonerates the offenders that was by criminal responsibility, an existing list that belongs to situations that appear incommensurable with the existence that belongs to the necessary guilty attitude or Mens rea happens to be provided. On the possibility that an existing criminal act happens to be committed while under the influence that belongs to drugs or alcohol, by an existing minor, or by an existing person who happens to be not that belongs to sound mind, the crime is going to not exist as a considered to have been committed by those individuals since [2]their actions lacked Mens rea. The common law concept that belongs to Mens rea happens to be then implicitly acknowledged inside of the chapter on top of general exceptions.
“The Supreme court ruled inside of Ravule Hariprasada Rao v. State (1951) that an existing person should not exist as a found guilty that belongs to an existing act unless he had an existing guilty mentality at the time that belongs to the conduct, barring legislation that expressly or logically removes Mens rea during the same time that an existing component ingredient that belongs to an existing crime. The common law concept that belongs to Mens rea does not apply to statutory offences inside of India, during the same time that stated by the supreme court inside of state that belongs to Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1964), among other things. There happens to be an existing presumption that Mens rea happens to be an existing essential element that belongs to an existing statutory offence during the same time that an existing result.”
The specific provisions that belongs to the act that defined the violation or the necessary conclusion has the ability, however, exist as a used to challenge it. Following that, justice K. Subbarao that belongs to the supreme court “emphasized that the element that belongs to Mens rea must exist as a read into statutory criminal provisions unless an existing legislation expressly or by necessary inference excludes it” inside of “Nathulal v state that belongs to Madhya Pradesh (1965)” as well as “Kartar Singh v state that belongs to Punjab (1961)”.
Mens rea not considered
Circumstances where Mens rea happens to be not taken into account of the Criminal law has been expanded to include additional categories that belongs to crimes that is going to belong to which Mens rea happens to be not an existing factor. Few offences, such during the same time that “statutory rape inside of which knowledge that the victim happens to be under the age that belongs to 18, on the possibility that the defendant knows the victim happens to be under the age. An existing bigamist happens to be someone who has two marriages. Bigamy as well as polygamy happen to be prohibited by the Hindu marriage act during the same time that valid marriages. It happens to be not necessary to prove Mens rea that is going to belong to an existing number that belongs to laws affecting economic or other actions that happen to be often characterized during the same time that “public welfare violations” as well as carry light penalties. Strict liability applies to an existing number that belongs to crimes, even on the possibility that they happen to be carried out without malice aforethought.
There happen to be an existing few exceptions to the rule “Actus non facit Reum nisi Mens sit rea.” The exceptions are as follows:
a. “Criminal Libel”
b. “Public Nuisance”
c. “Contempt of Court”
d. “Abduction or Kidnapping”
e. “Bigamy”
f. “Waging War”
g. “Sexual Harassment”
h. “Rape”
i. “Selling of obscene books”
j. “Essential Commodities Act,
1955” k. “Motor Vehicle Act, 1988” In the case of S. Varadrajan v. State that belongs to Madras, the supreme court made an existing distinction between taking custody that belongs to as well as allowing an existing child (1964). The court holds that merely contributing to the girl’s success does not amount to appropriating. That element does not constitute seizure because it does not compel the kid to leave the care that belongs to her legal guardian. The two terms happen to be not interchangeable. The two happen to be different that was by one another. She remained inside of her legal guardian’s custody; the accused inside of this case did not take her away. An existing form that belongs to incentive or active involvement inside of the development that belongs to the minor’s intention to leave the guardian’s home must exist as a provided inside of this case by the accused. The law placed no obligation on top of him to send her back to her father’s home or even to instruct her not go, so she freely accompanied him. There happened to be no taking inside of the given situation. S. Varadrajan happened to be declared not [3]guilty.
LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Mens Rea by Francis Bowes SayreIn the year 1932, the Harvard law review disseminated this essay. Mens rea as well as the distinction between Mens rea as well as Actus Reus happen to be the main topics that belongs to this article. According to the essay, “there cannot exist as any crime, no matter how tiny, without any bad thought.” an existing person committing an existing crime must have bad motives that is going to belong to doing so inside of order that is going to belong to the crime to exist as a considered to have occurred. Additionally, the article provides numerous definitions that belongs to Mens rea inside of relation to English law. The article also explains how Mens rea has the ability exist as a determined under English law by an existing competent authority. This page also includes significant case law, including the well-known Williamson v. Norris decision.
2. Four Functions of Mens Rea by Winnie Chan and Simester: In the year 2011, Cambridge law journal released this journal. “everyone believes that Mens rea happens to be relevant to an existing fault,” the journal’s opening sentence reads. which asserts that an existing bad intention happens to be necessary that is going to belong to an existing crime or error to occur. The history that belongs to Mens rea inside of relation to the world happens to be the main topic that belongs to the article. The case law inside of “sweet v. Parsley,” which happened to be referenced inside of the article, held that “Mens rea happens to be an existing presumptive ingredient that belongs to every single one criminal acts.” The Article discusses partially evaluated Mens rea, such during the same time that dishonesty as well as recklessness, during the same time that well during the same time that the cognitive aspects that belongs to Mens rea, such during the same time that intention as well as knowledge. This journal includes an existing variety that belongs to case laws during the same time that well during the same time that the rulings inside of the related cases.[4]
3. Insanity and Mens rea by J.R. Spencer: In the year 2000, Cambridge law journal published this journal. This diary essentially provides an existing response to an existing query on top of Mens rea as well as insanity. Inside of this instance, an existing man by the name that belongs to d happened to be confident that he happened to be the supremely powerful Jesus Christ. Without asking permission, the person known during the same time that d enters the home that belongs to the person known during the same time that p as well as uses the snooker cue to attack p. D had the intention that belongs to crucifying p. Five police officers intervened as well as apprehended d. D ultimately faced charges that belongs to aggravated burglary as well as assault. The first question that arose happened to be, “is d criminally liable?” the defense asked the jury to “found an existing special finding that belongs to not guilty by reason that belongs to insanity during the same time that allowed that is going to belong to by section 2 (1) that belongs to trial lunatics act 1883” since there happened to be an existing suspicion that d happened to be mentally ill as well as insane inside of this instance. During the same time that an existing result, the judge would exist as a forced to issue his ruling inside of accordance with criminal procedure insanity act that belongs to 1964 section 5. At the time where this case involving insanity reached the crown court, the trial judge accepted the defense’s submission as well as released the defendant.
CHAPTER- 3
CASE LAWS
- R. vs. Tolson (1889 23 QBD 168)-
In September 1880, the appellant happened to be married. Her husband went missing inside of december 1881. She happened to be informed that he happened to be an existing passenger on top of an existing ship that went missing at sea. She married another man six years later, thinking her spouse had passed away. After eleven months, her spouse showed up. She happened to be accused that belongs to committing the crime that belongs to bigamy. [5]
Held: She has the defense of mistake as it was reasonable for the circumstances which her husband was dead.
- R vs. Prince (1875 LR 2 CCR 154)-
For removing a juvenile girl from her father’s custody without his permission, the accused was found guilty. Although the girl was actually only 14 years old, she had told the accused that she was a major, and the accused had a good reason to believe her. The defendant challenged his conviction on appeal.
Held: The court held that when a statute is silent according to Mens rea for an offence, the court is not bound to read the Mens rea requirement in the statute. The offence was one of the strict liabilities.
Is a significant ruling. An German smuggler named Mayer Hans George took an existing flight on top of November 27, 1962, that was by Zurich, an existing renowned swiss city, to manila, the capital that belongs to the Philippines, carrying 34 Kilogrammes that belongs to gold. The flight reached Bombay on top of the 28th, with the exception of the respondent didn’t get off. The plane’s manifest happened to be inspected by customs officials that is going to belong to any gold that had been donated by an existing passenger, with the exception of none happened to be discovered. They got on top of the aircraft, searched the respondent, found the gold, as well as filed an existing charge against him under the foreign exchange regulation act that belongs to 1947’s sections 8(1) as well as 23(1-a) during the same time that well during the same time that an existing reserve bank that belongs to India notification that was by November 8, 1962, which happened to be published inside of the Indian gazette on top of November 24. The Supreme Court looked at a number of British and Indian cases. The FERA of 1947 had the intention of preventing smuggling. The economic state of the nation is relevant to this case. The Supreme Court decided to use the strict liability notion rather than the maxim as a result.
- (Subhash Shamrao Pachunde v. State of Maharashtra (2005)-In Subhash Shamrao Pachunde v. State that belongs to Maharashtra (2005), the supreme court ruled that the distinction between culpable homicide as well as murder depends on top of the specific Mens rea, which consists that belongs to four mental dispositions at the time where any that belongs to which happens to be present, the lesser offence becomes an existing greater one.
- Debeswar Bhuyan v. State Of Assam (2005)-
In the case of Debeswar Bhuyan case that was by 2005, the court highlighted that the burden that belongs to proof that is going to belong to the accused under section 84 IPC happens to be not any more than it would exist as a that is going to belong to an existing party inside of an existing civil matter. It also emphasised that the accused/appellant happened to be charged with murder. Inside of another sense, that is going to belong to an existing crime to exist as a classified during the same time that murder under the penal code, the act allegedly committed by the accused must always exist as an accompanied by his guilty mind, or Mens rea. It should exist as a noted that even on the possibility that the accused has not been able to prove beyond an existing reasonable doubt that he happened to be that belongs to unsound mind at the relevant time, it must exist as a held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge that belongs to murder against him on the possibility that the evidence on top of record regarding the accused’s mental state raises questions about his mental culpability. It happened to be also determined by the court after evaluating the evidence that the accused happened to be not acting inside of an existing rational manner at the time that belongs to the assault, making it impossible to draw the conclusion that he had the necessary intent to commit the offence that is going to belong to which he had been charged.
SUGGESTIONS
So as per the information which is given about Men’s rea and it’s concepts which it explains that any person who has a guilty mind of committing any act against other person which with the essential of Men’s rea that are intention, knowledge, recklessness, negligence, motive a person will be liable for Men’s rea as intention is when a person has an intent to harm or act on someone, knowledge is when a person knows that the act is a wrongdoing on other person but still continues to happen, recklessness is when a person knows that the act which the person is going to do will know the consequences but then also does the act, negligence is when a person with an intended mind does a negligent act. Motive is a feeling to do a wrongful act. Thus these acts makes a person liable for Men’s rea under Criminal Law.
CONCLUSION
Mens rea happens to be, that is going to belong to the most part, the basis that is going to belong to an existing conviction that is going to belong to any crime, as well as the justification happens to be straightforward: an existing person cannot exist as a held accountable that is going to belong to an existing offence he did not intend to commit because doing so would exist as an unfair as well as an existing violation that belongs to his rights. This happens to be stated inside of the research paper’s executive summary” crime as well as punishment” go hand inside of hand since no one happens to be expected to act wrongly inside of an existing democracy. Mens rea consequently becomes the sine qua non essential condition that is going to belong to each offence, unless expressly stated otherwise with good reason.
REFERENCES
- Francis Bowes SayreIn , Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 45, Issue 6 (April 1932), pp. 974-1026, https://heinonline.org.
(B) Winnie Chan, Mens Rea, Cambridge law journal, Vol. 70, issue 32 (May 2011), pp. 853- 955, https://www.cambridge.org.
C Simester, Mens Rea, The Cambridge law journal, Vol 70 issue 2, (july 2011), pp- 381- 386, https://www.jstor.org.
(D) J.R. Spencher, Mens Rea, Cambridge law journal, Vol 50 issue 4, (septmber 2000), pp- 407- 432, https://www.jstor.org.
(E) R. vs. Tolson (1889 23 QBD 168) ,
(F) R vs. Prince (1875 LR 2 CCR 154)
(G) State of Maharashtra v. M.H George(1964), AIR 722, 1965 SCR (1) 123
(H) Subhash Shamrao Pachunde v. State of Maharashtra (2005), Appeal (crl.) 541 of 1999
(I) Debeswar Bhuyan v. State Of Assam (2005), 2012 CriLJ 274
(J) S. Vardharajan vs State of Madras(1964), AIR 942, 1965 SCR (1) 243
(K) Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab(1965),. AIR 1787, 1962 SCR (2) 395
(L) Niranjan Singh vs Jitender Bhimraj(1990), AIR 1962, SCR (3) 633
Submitted by
VISHNU NARAYANAN. J
SYMBIOSIS LAW UNIVERSITY, HYDERABAD
1 Francis Bowes SayreIn , Mens Rea, Harvard Law Review, Vol. 45, Issue 6 (April 1932), pp. 974-1026, https://heinonline.org.
2 Winnie Chan, Mens Rea, Cambridge law journal, Vol. 70, issue 32 (May 2011), pp. 853- 955, https://www.cambridge.org.
[2] 3 Simester, Mens Rea, The Cambridge law journal, Vol 70 issue 2, (july 2011), pp- 381- 386, https://www.jstor.org.
4 J.R. Spencher, Mens Rea, Cambridge law journal, Vol 50 issue 4, (septmber 2000), pp- 407- 432, https://www.jstor.org.
[3] 5R. vs. Tolson (1889 23 QBD 168)
6 R vs. Prince (1875 LR 2 CCR 154)
[4] 7 State of Maharashtra v. M.H George(1964) , AIR 722, 1965 SCR (1) 123
8 Subhash Shamrao Pachunde v. State of Maharashtra (2005), Appeal (crl.) 541 of 1999
[5] 9 Debeswar Bhuyan v. State Of Assam (2005), 2012 CriLJ 274
10 S. Vardharajan vs State of Madras(1964), AIR 942, 1965 SCR (1) 243
11 Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab(1965),AIR 1787, 1962 SCR (2) 395
12 Niranjan Singh vs Jitender Bhimraj(1990), AIR 1962, SCR (3) 633