Essential Elements of Crime

(For B.A. LL.B 5th Sem 2020-25)

By: Anil K. Thakur (Asst. Prof.)
Lloyd Law College
Last updated: Aug, 2022
General Principles of Crime
 Topics Covered:
 Elements of crime
 Concept of Strict & Absolute Liability in
Criminal Cases
Essential Elements of Crime
4 essential elements of a crime are:-

(1) the crime must be committed by a person

(2) there must exist an actus reus,
(3) there must be a mens rea to commit the crime,
with certain exceptions.
(4) there must be injury caused to another person
 human being
(accused person)
1. crime must be committed by a person
(Human being)
 The basic essential element of any crime is that it must be
committed by a human being (person) who is under the legal
obligation to act in a particular manner, as an animal cannot
commit a crime.
 Animals used to be punished in ancient times, now their owners
are made liable.
 Section 11 of the IPC states that the word ‘person’ includes a
company, an association or a body of persons, whether
incorporated or not.
 The word ‘person’ includes artificial or juridical persons.
 Therefore, even a trust, an NGO and a company can commit
offences.
 Furthermore, certain offences can implicate more than one
person for the same crime. In such cases, all persons will face trial
and may have to face punishment together.

Criminal Liability of a Corporation
 Originally the prevalent view was that a corporation or a body
incorporate, which is separate legal entity, because of procedural
difficulties cannot be charged of offences.

 The obvious reasons were that a corporation could not be either arrested
or compelled to remain present during criminal proceedings; and neither
it could form the required intention to commit a crime, owing to the
absence of mind.

 However, with the course of time the concept of corporate criminal

responsibility evolved to the extent that the non liability of a corporation
soon gave way to the idea that it can be made liable for omission to act.

 The corporation or body incorporate can be convicted for a statutory

offence, if a statutory duty casted upon the corporation or a body
corporate is not performed.
Criminal Liability of a Corporation
 A corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its
own any more than it has a body of its own, its active
and directing will must consequently be sought in
the person of somebody who for some purposes may
be called an agent, but who is really the directing
mind and will of the corporation.

 The Board of directors are brains of a company

which is the body and the company can and does
only act through them.
 State of Maharastra v. M/s Syndicate Transport
AIR 1964 Bom 195

 In State of Maharastra v. M/s Syndicate Transport, AIR

1964 Bom 195, it was held that the question whether a
corporate body should or should not be liable for
criminal action resulting from the acts of some
individual must depend on the nature of offence
disclosed by the allegations in the complaint or in the
chargesheet, the relative position of the officer or
agent vis-à-vis the corporate body and other relevant
facts and circumstances which could show that the
corporate body, as such, meant or intended to
commit that act.
Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR
2005 SC 2622

 In Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement, a five

judge constitution bench of the apex court reiterated that a
corporation or a company, by virtue of sections 2 and 11 of the
IPC, is a 'person' and it, theoretically, can be prosecuted for an
offence punishable under law.
 The apex court ruled that there is no immunity to a company or
corporation from prosecution mainly because the prosecution is
in respect of offences for which the punishment prescribed is
mandatory corporeal punishment.
 The court stressed that company or corporation should not be
allowed to go scot free merely on the ground that it technically
cannot be punished by way of imprisonment.
 The apex court ruled that a company or corporation can be
charged with offence punishable with mandatory fine and
imprisonment, but the punishment can only be limited to a fine.
Facts:
 The appellant in the present case filed a writ petition of Civil
Appeal No. 1748 of 1999 before the High Court of Bombay
challenging various notices issued to them under Section 50
read with Section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,
1973.
 The appellant company in the High Court contended that it was
not liable to be prosecuted for the offence under Section 56 of
the FERA Act.
 The appellant filed an appeal against the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, dated 7thNovember,
1998, the appellant contends that no criminal proceedings can
be initiated against the appellant-company for the offence
under Section 56(1) of the FERA Act as the minimum
punishment prescribed under Section 56(1)(i) is imprisonment
for a term which shall not be less than six months and with fine.
Issues of Consideration:
 The main issues for consideration are as follows –

 Whether a company or a corporate body could be

prosecuted for offences for which the sentence of
imprisonment is a mandatory punishment?

 Where an accused is found guilty and the

punishment to be imposed is imprisonment and fine,
whether the court has got the discretion to impose
the sentence of fine alone?
 Judgement:
 The majority view was given by K.G. Balakrishnan, Arun Kumar, J.
and D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.

 Reference was made to Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code in

which the “person” is defined as: “The word “person” includes any
Company or Association or body of persons, whether incorporated
or not

 Reference was also made to the 41st and 47th law commission
report in which the law commission stated that – “In every case in
which the offence is only punishable with imprisonment or with
imprisonment and fine and the offender is a company or
other body corporate or an association of individuals, it shall be
competent to the court to sentence such offender to fine only.”
 Judgement:
 The judges further went on saying that it is true that all penal statutes
are to be strictly construed in the sense that the Court must see that
the thing charged as an offence is within the plain meaning of the
words used and must not strain the words on any notion that there has
been a slip that the thing is so clearly within the mischief that it must
have been intended to be included and would have included if thought
of.
 Further, all penal provisions like all other statutes are to be fairly
construed according to the legislative intent as expressed in the
enactment.
 In the present matter the legislative intent to prosecute corporate
bodies for the offence committed by them is clear and explicit and the
statute never intended to exonerate them from being prosecuted.
 According to them it would be sheer violence to common sense that
the legislature intended to punish the corporate bodies for minor and
silly offences and extended immunity of prosecution to major and
grave economic crimes.
current position
 Thus, after this case the current position is that that
corporations can no longer claim immunity from
criminal prosecution on the grounds that they are
incapable of possessing the necessary mens rea for
the commission of criminal offences.

 The notion that a corporation cannot be held liable

for the commission of a crime had been rejected.
 mens rea

Mental State (Mens Rea)

2. mens rea
 The second element, which is an important essential
of a crime, is mens rea or guilty mind.
 It is a necessary element, the criminal act must be
voluntary or purposeful.
 Mens rea is the mental intention (mental fault), or the
accused's state of mind at the time of the offense,
called the guilty mind.
 it’s what was the accused's mental state and what did
the accused intend when the crime was committed.
 The mental element or mens rea in modern times
means that the person’s conduct must be voluntary
and it must also be actuated by a guilty mind
 mens rea
 In the entire field of criminal law there is no important
doctrine than that of mens rea.
 It stems from the ancient maxim of obscure origin,
"actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" which
means "the act is not guilty unless the mind is guilty.“
mens rea is the state of mind indicating culpability,
which is required by statute as an element of a crime.
 It is commonly taken to mean some blameworthy
mental condition, whether constituted by intention or
knowledge or otherwise, the absence of which on any
particular occasion negatives the intention of a crime.
 mens rea
 It is also one of the essential ingredients of criminal
liability (certain exceptions are there)
 As a general rule (exceptions are there) every crime
requires a mental element, the nature of which will
depend upon the definition of the particular crime
in question.
 Even in crimes of strict liability some mental
element is required.
 Because of the potentially severe consequences of
criminal conviction, judges at common law also
sought proof of an intent to do some bad thing, the
mens rea or guilty mind.
Different Expressions used in IPC
 Expressions used in different sections of IPC
connoting the requirement of a mental element
include: intentionally, knowingly, with intent,
recklessly, unlawfully, maliciously, willfully, knowing
or believing, fraudulently, dishonestly, corruptly,
allowing, and permitting.
 Each of these expressions is capable of bearing a
meaning, which differs from that ascribed to any
other.
 The meaning of each must be determined in the
context in which it appears, and the same
expression may bear a different meaning in
different contexts.
almost all offences require mens rea

 Under the IPC, guilt in respect of almost* all

offences is fastened either on the ground of
intention or knowledge or reason to believe.
 All the offences under the Code are qualified by
one or the other words such as wrongful gain or
wrongful loss, dishonestly, fraudulently, reason to
believe, criminal knowledge or intention,
intentional co-operation, voluntarily, malignantly,
wantonly etc.
 *few exceptions are there discussed in subsequent PPTs
For example:
 Some crimes – particularly modern regulatory
offenses – require no mens rea, and they are
known as strict liability offenses

 For example: Under the Road traffic Act 1988 it

is a strict liability offence to drive a vehicle with
an alcohol concentration above the prescribed
limit.
almost all offences require mens rea
 All these words describe the mental condition
required at the time of commission of the offence, in
order to constitute an offence.
 Thus, though the word mens rea as such is nowhere
found in the IPC, its essence is reflected in almost all
the provisions of the code.
 The existence of the mental element or guilty mind or
mens rea at the time of commission of the actus reus
or the act alone will make the act an offence.
 As to crimes of which both actus reus and mens rea
are the requirements or we can say are essential,
judges have concluded that the elements must be
present at precisely the same moment and it is not
enough that they occurred sequentially at different
times.
 almost all offences require mens rea
 Generally, subject to both qualification and exception,
a person is not criminally liable for a crime unless he
intends to cause, foresees that he will probably cause,
or at the lowest, foresees that he may cause, the
elements which constitute the crime in question.
 it is impossible to ascribe any particular meaning to
the term mens rea, concepts such as those of
intention, recklessness and knowledge are commonly
used as the basis for criminal liability.
 Mens rea allows the criminal justice system to
differentiate between someone who did not mean to
commit a crime and someone who intentionally set
out to commit a crime.
Let’s take an example
 Imagine two drivers who end up hitting and
killing a pedestrian.
 Driver 1 never saw the person until it was too
late, tried his best to brake, but could do nothing
to stop the accident and in fact ended up killing
the pedestrian. Driver 1 is still liable, but likely
only in civil court for monetary damages.
 Let’s take an example
 Driver 2, on the other hand, had been out looking
for the pedestrian and upon seeing him, steered
towards him, hit the gas pedal and slammed into
him, killing him instantly.
 Driver 2 is probably criminally liable because he
intended to kill the pedestrian, or at least he
intended to cause serious bodily harm.
 Even though the pedestrian is killed in both
scenarios (the outcome is the same), the intent of
both drivers was very different and their
punishments will be substantially different as a
result.
 Exception to Mens rea

 It is almost always necessary to prove Mens Rea.

 It is to be proven that the person accused really had
the intention to cause such harm to the other
person property and also knows about the
consequences of his action.
 Exception to Mens rea is the “Strict Liability
offences” in which punishments are provided even
when the act is done without a guilty intent.
 Mens rea under IPC
 The word mens rea have nowhere been used in the Indian
Penal Code but it has been applied in two different ways:-
 While defining offences some words used in the respective
section which indicate the actual criminal intent required
for the offence. Such words are knowingly, intentionally,
fraudulently, dishonestly, voluntarily etc.
 Such words haven’t been used in case of offences which
can’t be committed by an innocent person. Such offences
are Waging War against Government (Section 121), Sedition
(Section 124-A) and Counterfeiting of Coins (Section 232)
etc.
 IPC also contains a separate Chapter i.e. Chapter IV on
General Exceptions (Section 76 to 106) which indicates the
circumstances where the absence of criminal intent may be
presumed.
Words denoting mens rea in IPC

 As we all know that the word ‘mens rea’ is not

used in Indian Penal Code but there are some
words used in the Indian Penal Code which denote
the presence of Mens rea in Indian Penal Code,
such words are explained hereinafter –
Fraudulently
 Generally, the term ‘Fraud’ means 'the willful, misstatement about
material fact of a thing’.
 According to Section 25 of the code – “A person is said to do a
thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but
not otherwise”.
 The term ‘fraud’ has been defined under Section 17 of Indian
Contract Act, 1872 which has received a meaning much extensive
for the purpose of the code. Section 17 of Indian Contract Act
provides that - ‘Fraud’ means and includes any of the following
acts committed by the party to a contract, or with the connivance
or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his
agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract
 (1) The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true by one who
does not believe it to be true ;
 (2) The active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or
belief of the fact;
 (3) A promise made without any intention of performing it;
 Queen Empress V/s Soshi Bhushan
15A.210:A.W.N.(1893)96
 In this Case accused applied for admission to
LL.B. (Final) class in Benaras University alleging
that he had attended LL.B. (Previous) class in
Lucknow Canning College. He was admitted and
required to produce a certificate in support of
proof of having passed LL.B. (Previous)
examination.
 He produced a forged certificate and it was held
that he acted fraudulently.
Dishonestly –
 Generally, ‘Dishonestly’ means ‘unchaste, shameful,
or characterized by lack of truth, honesty’.
 According to Section 24 of the IPC ‘Dishonestly’
means –
 “Whoever does anything with the intention of causing
wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to
another, is said to do that thing dishonestly”.
 For Example – ‘A’ is entitled to the possession of his
house from ‘z’ and sued him for the arrears of rent on
the basis of rent note, which was found to be forged.
 Thus, he is not entitled to get the rent as per that rent
note and as ‘A’s intention to cause wrongful gain to
himself so he is said to do that thing dishonestly.
 Krishan Kumar v/s. Union of India
1959 AIR 1390
 In this case the Court has held that Wrongful gain
includes wrongful retention and wrongful loss
includes being kept out of the property as well as
being wrongfully deprived of property.
 Therefore when a particular thing has gone into
the hands of a servant he will be guilty of
misappropriating the thing in all circumstances
which show a malicious intent to deprive the
master of it.
Facts of the case last cited
 The appellant was employed as an Assistant Store
Keeper in the Central Tractor Organisation, Delhi.
He took delivery of a consignment of iron and steel
received by rail for the Organisation and removed
them from the railway siding. The goods did not
reach the Organisation. The appellant absented
himself from duty on the following days and when
he was called he gave a false explanation that he
had not taken delivery of the goods. The appellant
was tried for misappropriation of the goods, under
S. 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Facts of the case last cited
 He took the defence that he had moved the goods to
another siding but this was not accepted and the
appellant was convicted.
 The appellant contended that his conviction was bad as
the prosecution had failed to prove that he converted
the goods to his own use and did not apply them to the
purpose for which he had received them. Held, that the
appellant had been rightly convicted.
 The offence of misappropriation was established when
the prosecution proved that the servant received the
goods, that he was under a duty to account to his
master and that he had not done so.
‘fraudulently’ and dishonestly’
have been jointly used in IPC

 There are some Sections in Indian Penal Code,

where the words ‘fraudulently’ and dishonestly’
have been jointly used.
 Such sections are Section 209, 246, 247, 415, 421,
422, 423, 424, 464, 471 and 496 IPC.
Voluntarily: –
 Generally, the word ‘voluntarily’ means 'an act done
without influence or compulsion'.
 According to Section 39 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.”
 The word ‘voluntarily’ as used in Section 39 takes into
account not only intention but also knowledge and
reasonable grounds of belief.
 Voluntarily causing an effect -
(a) with intention to cause the effect,
(b) with the knowledge of the likelihood of causing the
effect.
(c) having reason to believe that the effect is likely to be
caused.
Queen Empress V/s Raghu Nath Rai & others,
1892 All. HC

 In this case, a person took away a calf from

another’s house without his knowledge and
consent in order to save it from slaughter.

 The accused was held guilty of theft and rioting

although he acted with the best of motive to
save the life of the sacred cow.
Factors to be considered
 Thus, mens rea refers to intention, while the actus
reus refers to an action.
 In any criminal case, the action, as well as the
intention, must be established for a person to be
charged with a crime.
 The degree and the kind of causation must also be
considered.
 Also, all legitimate defenses, mitigating factors,
and justifying circumstances must be taken into
account for a criminal charge to be determined.
Factors to be considered

 A person can be found guilty of a crime when he or

she has committed the crime: Purposefully,
intentionally, Knowingly, Recklessly, or
Negligently.
 The first two of the above constitute more serious
crimes and are categorized as “intentional” crime.
The latter two are considered less serious crimes
and are categorized as ‘unintentional’ crime. The
two crimes entail different punishment.
How can mens rea impact a defense ?
 In IPC under Chapter IV Sections 76 to 106 wherein acts otherwise
would constitute offences ceased to be so under certain
circumstances set out in the various sections.
 Therefore, these exceptions are in itself a recognition of the
principle of mens rea.
 It deals with general exceptions which contains conditions when
the actions occur but the person is not in a state that they can
have any kind of guilty intention to do it.
 Basically in that chapter the section contains conditions in which
a prohibited action has taken place but the person doing it
cannot possibly have Mens Rea i.e., a guilty intent to commit
such crime.
 There are various conditions in which a person is unable to have
mens rea such as when a person is of unsound mind, involuntarily
intoxicated, minor, working in good faith, bound by their
occupation, mistaken by facts etc.
 How can mens rea impact a defense ?
 The only trouble is to prove whether or not Mens Rea was
present because it is tough to estimate what actually goes on
inside the mind of any person. If once proven, criminal liability
does not arise and the person can be excused for such crime.
 In Indian criminal law, it is considered that a certain section of
people are not capable of having a guilty intention even if they
have committed a prohibited act.
 And hence lack of guilty intention makes the action not a crime
and can be excused.
 This category includes- a person of unsound mind, minor and a
person under whose while committing the action was under the
influence of alcohol/drugs.
 These also come under the Chapter –IV ‘General Exceptions’ in
IPC including section 76-106.
 In detail these defences are explained in ppts of general
exceptions.
 Intention, Motive, Volition:
 The intention is divisible into immediate and ulterior intent. A crime is
seldom committed for its own sake. There is an ulterior object in the
commission of the crime.
 For example, when a robber robs a person his immediate intention is
to rob him, but the ultimate or ulterior intent is to pur-chase food or
wine for himself. The ulterior object is called motive, while the
immediate action is intention.
 Volition is will power that keeps you going throughout the entire
process from start to finish. As a general rule, a man’s motive is
irrelevant in determining the question of criminal liability. No act
otherwise lawful becomes un-lawful because it has been done with a
bad motive and conversely, an act otherwise unlawful cannot be
excused because of the good mo-tives of the doer of the act.
 The law, therefore, takes into account the primary or immediate
intention and not the ulterior, remote, or secon-dary. The law does not
concern with motive, which may be good, bad, or indifferent. The end
cannot justify the means and so the motive cannot justify the
intention. But sometimes, motive plays an important role. (see the last
part of answer)
Motive
 Motive is the psychological phenomena which compels a
person to do a particular act. For example: ambition, jealously,
fear etc.
 Motive is something which leads or tempts the mind to
indulge in an act or which compels the mind to do an act.
 According to Austin, motive is like a spring. It pushes the
intention further.
 In contrast, intention is the aim of the act. Motive is something
which triggers mens rea. Motive can be good or bad.
 For instance, a person may commit theft to feed poor people.
His motive is good, i.e., helping the poor. However, his
intention is to commit a crime to achieve that motive.
 Motive may be relevant to find out the guilt of the accused but
is not an ingredient of crime.
Intention and Motive:
 Sometimes, motive plays an important role and
becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and,
therefore, motive behind the crime become a relevant
factor for knowing the intention of a person.
 In Om Prakash v. State of Uttranchal [(2003) 1 SCC
648] and State of UP v. Arun Kumar Gupta [(2003) 2
SCC 202] the Supreme Court rejected the plea that
the prosecution could not signify the motive for the
crime holding that failure to prove motive is irrelevant
in a case wherein the guilt of the accused is proved
otherwise.
 motive is not an essential element of an offence but
motive helps us to know the intention of a person.
Motive is relevant and important on the question of
intention.
Intention:
 To intend is to have in mind a fixed purpose to reach a
desired objective; it is used to denote the state of mind
of a man who not only foresees but also desires the
possible consequences of his conduct.
 The idea foresees but also desires the possible
consequences of his conduct.
 The idea of ‘intention’ in law is not always expressed
by the words ‘intention’, ‘intentionally’ or ‘with intent
to’.
 It is expressed also by words such as ‘voluntarily’,
‘wilfully’ or ‘deliberately’ etc.
Transferred intention:
 Where a person intends to commit a particular crime
and brings about the elements which constitute that
crime, he may be convicted notwithstanding that the
crime takes effect in a manner which was unintended
or unforeseen.
 A, intends to kill B by poisoning. A places a glass of
milk with poison on the table of B knowing that at the
time of going to bed B takes glass of milk. On that
fateful night instead of B, C enters the bedroom of B
and takes the glass of milk and dies in consequence.
 A is liable for the killing of C under the principle of
transferred intention or malice the case will be
covered under the common law doctrine of
'transferred malice' incorporated in Section 301 IPC
Intention and Motive:
 Intention and motive are often confused as being one and
the same.
 The two, however, are distinct and have to be
distinguished.
 The mental element of a crime ordinarily involves no
reference to motive.
 Motive is something which prompts a man to form an
intention.
 Intention has been defined as the fixed direction of the
mind to a particular object, or determination to act in a
particular manner and it is distinguishable from motive
which incites or stimulates action.
Intention and Knowledge:
 The terms ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’ which denote
mens rea appear in Sections 299 and 300, having
different consequences.
 Intention and knowledge are used as alternate
ingredients to constitute the offence of culpable
homicide.
 However, intention and knowledge are two different
things.
 Intention is the desire to achieve a certain purpose while
knowledge is awareness on the part of the person
concerned of the consequence of his act of omission or
commission, indicating his state of mind.
 The demarcating line between knowledge and intention
is no doubt thin, but it is not difficult to perceive that
they connote different things.
Intention and Knowledge:
 There may be knowledge of the likely consequences
without any intention to cause the consequences.
 For example, a mother jumps into a well along with her
child in her arms to save herself and her child from the
cruelty of her husband. The child dies but the mother
survives. The act of the mother is culpable homicide. She
might not have intended to cause death of the child but, as
a person having prudent mind, which law assumes every
person to have, she ought to have known that jumping into
the well along with the child was likely to cause the death
of the child.
 She ought to have known as prudent member of the
society that her act was likely to cause death even when
she may not have intended to cause the death of the child.
Negligence:
 If anything is done without any advertence to the
consequent event or result, the mental state in such
situation signifies negligence. The event may be
harmless or harmful; if harmful the question arises
whether there is legal liability for it.
 In civil law (common law) it is decided by considering
whether or not a reasonable man in the same
circumstances would have realized the prospect of
harm and would have stopped or changed his course
so as to avoid it.
 If a reasonable man would not, then there is no
liability and the harm must lie where it falls.
Negligence:
 The word ‘negligence’, therefore, is used to
denote blameworthy inadvertence. It should be
recognized that at common law there is no
criminal liability for harm thus caused by
inadvertence.
 Strictly speaking, negligence may not be a form of
mens rea. It is more in the nature of a legal fault.
 However, it is made punishable for a utilitarian
purpose of hoping to improve people’s standards
of behaviour.
Negligence:

 Crimes of negligence may be created by statute,

and a statute may provide that it is a defense to
charges brought under its provisions for the
accused to prove that he was not negligent.
 Advertent & inadvertent negligence

 Advertent negligence is commonly termed as willful

negligence or recklessness.
 In other words, inadvertent negligence may be
distinguished as simple.
 In the former i.e. advertent negligence the harm done is
foreseen as possible or probable but it is not willed.
 In the latter it is neither foreseen nor willed.
 In each case carelessness, i.e. to say indifference as to the
consequences, is present; but in the advertent negligence
this indifference does not, while in the inadvertent
negligence it does prevent these consequences from
being foreseen.
Advertent & inadvertent negligence
 The physician who treats a patient improperly through ignorance or
forgetfulness is guilty of simple or inadvertent negligence; but if he
does the same in order to save himself from trouble, or by way of a
scientific experiment with full recognition of the danger so incurred,
his negligence is willful.
 It may be important to state here that the willful wrong doer is
liable because he desires to do the harm; the negligent wrong
doer is liable because he does not sufficiently desire to avoid it.
 He who will excuse himself on the ground that he meant no evil is
still open to the reply: perhaps you did not, but at all event you
might have avoided it if you had sufficiently desired to do so; and
you are held liable not because you desired the mischief, but
because you were careless and indifferent.

 It is on this ground that negligence is treated as a form of mens

rea, standing side by side with wrongful intention as a formal
ground of responsibility.
degrees of Mens Rea
 The degrees of mens rea are:

 Intention: Complete knowledge of harm and its

consequences.
 Knowledge: No intention, but knowledge of an
apparent harm.
 Reason to Believe: No particular information, but some
reason to believe of the consequences of the act.
 Recklessness: Higher degree of negligence, aware of
consequences.
 Negligence: Not aware of consequences.
 Factors examined to establish mens rea

 The act can be done voluntary or involuntary, and the guilt is

determined by the facts of the case. Mens Rea as such is not
punishable.
 The following factors are examined to establish Mens Rea:
 Previous relation between the accused and the victim, any
object of hostility between them.
 Existence of instigation i.e. whether accused was hired and
what prompted him to commit crime.
 Whether the accused had something to gain out of the whole
affair.
 Illustration: A person drives under influence of intoxication
and causes an accident which harms others. He will be held
responsible for his actions as he voluntarily made a choice
to drink and drive, even if the crime itself was
unintentional.
Case laws:
 Nathulal vs. State of M.P (AIR 1966 SC 43)
 In this case, the accused was a food grain dealer who
applied for a licence and deposited the requisite
licence fee. Without knowledge of rejection of his
application, he purchased food grains and sent
returns to the Licencing Authority, who on checking,
found that it was in excess of the quantity permitted
by Section 7 of MP Food Grains Dealers Licensing
Order, 1958.
 The accused was prosecuted. However, he was
acquitted on the ground that he had no guilty mind.
 State of Maharashtra v. M H George
(AIR 1965 SC 722)

 In this case, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) placed some

restrictions on the entry of gold into India, thus
superseding an earlier notification.
 The accused reached Mumbai from Manila, where
gold bars were recovered from his jacket.
 The accused pleaded that he had no Mens Rea and
that he had no knowledge of the RBI notification.
 After considering the object and subject matter of
statute, the Court held that there was no scope for the
invocation of the doctrine of mens rea in this
particular case.
R. S. Joshi, S.T.O. Gujarat Etc. ... vs Ajit
Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad & Anr. (1977 AIR 2279)

 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
severe punishments even where the offences have been defined
to exclude Mens Rea.
 The respondents, who were registered dealers, tax collected from
various customers amounts qua sales tax prohibited by s. 46 of
the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (as applicable to the State of
Gujarat)
 Acting on the prohibition plus penalty contained in s. 46 read with
s. 37(1) of the Act the Sales Tax officers imposed penalties and
forfeited the sums collected in contravention of s. 46.
 HELD : The punitive impost in s. 37(1)(a) is legitimate and valid.
Crimes of Strict Liability
 There is a presumption that the doctrine of mens rea
applies to all statutory crime, but the presumption is
liable to be displaced by the following ways:
i. By the express provision of law (words of the statue
creating the offence)
ii. By necessary implication (by the subject matter with
which it deals)
 The Supreme Court on various occasions has
reiterated that unless a statue either clearly or by
necessary implication rules out mens rea as a
constituent element of crime, person should not be
held guilty for an offence, if he does not have a guilty
mind
 exceptional cases: offences of strict
liability or absolute liability

 Thus, in exceptional cases a person may be

convicted of an offence independently of any
wrongful intent or culpable negligence.
 Such offences are termed as offences of strict
liability or absolute liability. In such a case it is no
defence to an accused that he honestly believed
on reasonable grounds and in good faith in the
existence of facts which would have rendered his
conduct innocent.
 Strict Liability
 The principle of strict liability evolved in the case
of Rylands v Fletcher (1868) L.R. 3 H.L. 330. In the year
1868, the principle of strict liability stated that any person
who keeps hazardous substances on his premises will be
held responsible if such substances escape the premises
and causes any damage.
 Going into the facts of the case, F had a mill on his land,
and to power the mill, F built a reservoir on his land. Due
to some accident, the water from the reservoir flooded
the coal mines owned by R. Subsequently, R filed a suit
against F.
 The Court held that the defendant built the reservoir at
his risk, and in course of it, if any accident happens then
the defendant will be liable for the accident and escape of
the material.
 Strict Liability
 Going by the principle laid in this case, it can be said that
if a person brings on his land and keeps some dangerous
thing, and such a thing is likely to cause some damage if it
escapes then such person will be answerable for the
damaged caused.
 The person from whose property such substance escaped
will be held accountable even when he hasn’t been
negligent in keeping the substance in his premises.
 The liability is imposed on him not because there is any
negligence on his part, but the substance kept on his
premises is hazardous and dangerous.
 Based on this judicial pronouncement, the concept of
strict liability came into being.
 There are some essential conditions which should be
fulfilled to categorize a liability under the head of strict
liability.
3 condition to strict liability

 These three condition needs to be satisfied

simultaneously to constitute a strict liability:
 Dangerous Substances
 Escape
 Non-natural Use
Essentials of Strict Liability
 Dangerous Substances: The defendant will be held strictly liable
only if a “dangerous” substances escapes from his premises.
 For the purpose of imposing strict liability, a dangerous substance
can be defined as any substance which will cause some mischief or
harm if it escapes. Things like explosives, toxic gasses, water,
electricity, etc. can be termed as dangerous things.
 Escape: One more essential condition to make the defendant
strictly liable is that the material should escape from the premises
and shouldn’t be within the reach of the defendant after its escape.
 For instance, the defendant has some poisonous plant on his
property. Leaves from the plant enter the property of the plaintiff
and is eaten by his cattle, who as a result die. The defendant will be
liable for the loss. But on the other hand, if the cattle belonging to
the plaintiff enter the premises of the defendant and eats the
poisonous leaves and die, the defendant would not be liable. In the
judicial pronouncement of Reads v. Lyons & Co. [1947] AC 156 House
of Lords; it was held that if there is no escape, the defendant
cannot be held liable.
Essentials of Strict Liability
 Non-natural Use: To constitute a strict liability, there should be a
non-natural use of the land. In the case of Rylands v. Fletcher, the
water collected in the reservoir was considered to be a non-natural
use of the land. Storage of water for domestic use is considered to
be natural use. But storing water for the purpose of energizing a
mill was considered non-natural by the Court.
 When the term “non-natural” is to be considered, it should be kept
in mind that there must be some special use which increases the
danger to others. Supply of cooking gas through the pipeline,
electric wiring in a house, etc. is considered to be the natural use of
land.
 For instance, if the defendant lights up a fire in his fireplace and a
spark escapes and causes a fire, the defendant will not be held
liable as it was a natural use of the land.
 These three condition needs to be satisfied simultaneously to
constitute a strict liability.
Exception to the Rule of Strict Liability
 There are certain exceptions to the rule of strict liability,
which are-
 Plaintiff’s Fault: If the plaintiff is at fault and any damage
is caused, the defendant wouldn’t be held liable, as the
plaintiff himself came in contact with the dangerous thing.
 In the judicial pronouncement of Ponting v Noakes (1849)
2 QB 281,the plaintiff’s horse died after it entered the
property of the defendant and ate some poisonous leaves.
The Court held that it was a wrongful intrusion, and the
defendant was not to be held strictly liable for such loss.
 Act of God: The phrase “act of God” can be defined as an
event which is beyond the control of any human agency.
Such acts happen exclusively due to natural reasons and
cannot be prevented even while exercising caution and
foresight. The defendant wouldn’t be liable for the loss if
the dangerous substance escaped because of some
unforeseen and natural event which couldn’t have been
controlled in any manner.
Exception to the Rule of Strict Liability
 Act of the Third Party: The rule also doesn’t apply when
the damage is caused due to the act of a third party. The
third party means that the person is neither the servant of
the defendant, nor the defendant has any contract with
them or control over their work. But where the acts of the
third party can be foreseen, the defendant must take due
care. Otherwise, he will be held responsible.
 For instance, in the case of Box v Jubb, LR 4 EX Div
76 where the reservoir of the defendant overflowed
because a third party emptied his drain through the
defendant’s reservoir, the Court held that the defendant
wouldn’t be liable.
 Consent of the Plaintiff: This exception follows the
principle of violenti non fit injuria. For instance, if A and B
are neighbors, and they share the same water source
which is situated on the land of A, and if the water escapes
and causes damage to B, he can’t claim damages, as A
wouldn’t be liable for the damage.
 EXCEPTIONS TO MENS REA:
 There are many exceptional cases where mens rea is not required in
criminal law. Some of them are as follows:
 a. Where a statute imposes liability, the presence of absence of a guilty
mind is irrelevant. Many laws passed in the interest of public safety and
social welfare imposes absolute liability. This is so in matters concerning
public health, food, drugs, etc. There is absolute liability (mens rea is not
essential) in the licensing of shops, hotels, restaurants and chemists
establishments. The same is true of cases under the Motor Vehicles Act
and the Arms Act.
 b. Where it is difficult to prove mens rea and penalties are petty fines.
In such petty cases, speedy disposal of cases is necessary and the proving
of mens rea is not easy. An accused may be fined even without any proof
of mens rea.
 c. In the interest of public safety, strict liability is imposed and whether a
person causes public nuisance with a guilty mind or without guilty mind,
he is punished.
 d. If a person violates a law even without the knowledge of the
existence of the law, it can still be said that he has committed an act
which is prohibited by law. In such cases, the fact that he was not aware of
the law and hence did not intend to violate it is no defense and he would
be liable as if he was aware of the law. This follows from the maxim
'ignorance of the law is no excuse'.
State Of Gujarat & Anr vs Acharya D. Pandey & Ors
AIR 1971 SC 866

 In State of Gujarat v. D.P. Pandey, the Supreme Court

observed the ideal rule of interpretation of penal statues in
the following words:
 'The broad principles accepted by courts in this country as
well as England are that where an offence is created by a
statue, however comprehensive and unqualified the
language of the statue, it is usually understood that
element of mens rea should be imported into the
definition of the crimes silently, unless a contrary intention
is expressed or implied.
 In other words, the plain words of the statue are subject to
a presumption that general rule of law that no crime can
be committed unless there is mens rea, is not ousted by
the particular enactment, but it may be rebutted.
State Of Gujarat & Anr vs Acharya D. Pandey & Ors
AIR 1971 SC 866

 On the allegations, that the 1st accused, who was the

Acharya of a public trust withdrew money from the
trust fund to meet his tax liabilities, that the other
accused as trustees connived at the contraventions of
the law, and that the money were reimbursed later,
the accused were convicted under ss. 35(i) and 66 of
the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
 In appeal, the High Court acquitted, the accused,
holding that the requisite mens rea was not proved
against the 1st accused, and that the other accused
were not trustees at the time of the alleged offence.
State Of Gujarat & Anr vs Acharya D. Pandey & Ors
AIR 1971 SC 866

 SC held that Section 35(1) of the Act creates a quasi-

criminal offence. It is a regulatory provision.
 It is enacted with a view to safeguard the interest of the
public regarding trust money. The offence in question is
punishable only with fine.
 The conviction under that does not carry any stigma.
The language of the provision appears to make its
contravention an strict liability.
 Under these circumstances, we think the offence
mentioned in that section is an absolute one.
 Consequently we cannot read into it the requirement of
mens rea.
Absolute Liability
 The rule of absolute liability, in simple words, can be
defined as the rule of strict liability minus the
exceptions.
 In India, the rule of absolute liability evolved in the case
of MC Mehta v Union of India. A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1086:
1987 ACJ 386
 This is one of the most landmark judgment which relates to
the concept of absolute liability.
 The facts of the case are that some oleum gas leaked in a
particular area in Delhi from industry. Due to the leakage,
many people were affected.
 The Apex Court then evolved the rule of absolute liability
on the rule of strict liability and stated that the defendant
would be liable for the damage caused without considering
the exceptions to the strict liability rule.
 Absolute Liability
 According to the rule of absolute liability, if any person is
engaged in an inherently dangerous or hazardous activity,
and if any harm is caused to any person due to such activity
which occurred during carrying out such inherently
dangerous and hazardous activity, then the person who is
carrying out such activity will be held absolutely liable. The
exception to the strict liability rule also wouldn’t be
considered.
 The rule laid down in the case of MC Mehta v UOI was also
followed by the Supreme Court while deciding the case of
Bhopal Gas Tragedy case. To ensure that victims of such
accidents get quick relief through insurance, the Indian
Legislature passed the Public Liability Insurance Act in the
year 1991.
Cases to which the doctrine of mens rea doesn't not
apply
 Cases to which the doctrine of mens rea doesn't not applies
may be placed under four categories:
i. Statutory offences of abduction, kidnapping, rape and
offences against the state and army.
ii. Cases of public nuisance, libel and contempt of court
(discussed later)
iii. Offences created by statues that are regulatory in nature, in
which although the proceedings are criminal, it is really a
mode of enforcing a civil right, for example, cases of
violation of municipal laws, town planning laws, and traffic
regulations, etc.
iv. Public welfare offences which include socio-economic
offences relating to food, drugs, weight and measures,
hoarding and black marketing, licensing, revenue,
environmental pollution and custom offences, etc. These
offences are basically quasi criminal in nature.
Absolute Liability
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086
 Allowing the petition for closure of the Shriram Fertiliser
Industries plant, court said:
 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 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 activity it has undertaken.
 The enterprise must conduct and follow the highest
standards of safety and if any harm results on account of
such activity, the enterprise must be absolutely held liable
to compensate for such harm and the enterprise cannot
take the excuse that it had taken all reasonable care and
harm occurred without any negligence on its part
M.C.Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 1086

 The Supreme Court authoritatively ruled that the

operation of common law doctrine of strict liability
enunciated in 1868 in Ryland v. Fletcher because it has
limited application in India.
 As regards the measure of damages the court said
that the damages by way of compensation must have
deterrent effect and must be correlated to the
magnitude and capacity of the enterprise.
 The judgment is not confined only to enterprises
which are engaged in industry for profit; it extends to
all enterprises which are engaged in hazardous or
inherently dangerous activities such as the state
enterprises, scientific, research institutions, under or
outside the auspices of state, etc.
No mens rea needed in public welfare offences

 Mens rea as a universally accepted principle is

essential element or ingredient of crime, though it is
not without its limitations.
 In the contemporary times, an entire range of social
or public welfare litigations have been conceived in
a manner that no mens rea is required for imposing
criminal liability because the law makes the mere
omission or commission of acts punishable.
 In other words, no mens rea is required for imposing
liability in public welfare offences.
 No mens rea needed in public welfare offences

 The state in order to ensure that the public at large is not put to risk
or cheated in the profit making ventures of the industries, has
enacted certain Acts and Courts have held that mens rea is not
essential for offences under Public Welfare Legislations.
 For Example : Courts have taken similar view in respect of the
following Acts:
i. Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947(now called Foreign Exchange
Management Act, 1999) designed to safeguard and conserve the
foreign exchange is essential to safeguard the economy.
ii. The protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 enacted to
protect the rights of dalits or the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes.
iii. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which recognizes the inherent
power of courts to punish persons who obstruct or interfere with the
administration of justice.
Vicarious Liability in Criminal Law
 General Rule: The principle of vicarious liability plays an
important role in law of torts and civil law; generally
should not be extended to criminal law because under
criminal law the underlying principle is that a man should
only be punished for his misdeeds and not others.
 However; the English law has recognized two exceptions
to this rule of non-liability:
i. A master is vicariously liable for libel published by his
servant. However, it is open to a master proprietor to show
in defense that the libel was published without his
authority and with no lack of care on his part.
ii. A master is vicariously responsible for a public nuisance
committed by his servant.
It is within the power of the legislature to make certain
illegal acts or omissions penal and fix an absolute liability
upon the person, if a breach of certain enactment is made.
 Vicarious Liability in Criminal Law
 Acts or defaults of a servant or agent in the ordinary
course of his employment makes the master or
employee liable, once the absolute/strict liability is
fixed, then the particular intent or state of mind is not
the essence of offence; although he was not aware of
acts or defaults and might have been against his orders.
 However, such liability must be specifically imposed by
the terms of the statue or at least the fact of implied
liability must be sufficiently evident from the provisions
of the statue.
 No person can be vicariously liable if a provision to
this effect does not exist in the statue concerned.
 In fact, strict liability clauses in statues might result
in the agents being made liable for the act of the
master.
Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar
Pradesh AIR 1961 SC 631
 In Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh
AIR 1961 SC 631, the appellant who was an
employee, was convicted under the
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954
for the act of mastering in selling
adulterated oil.
Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar
Pradesh AIR 1961 SC 631
 The appellant was an employee of one Thakur
Das, a vendor of edible oils. He was found to have
sold adulterated mustard oil and he and Thakur
Das were prosecuted for an offence under S. 7
r/w S. 16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration
Act, 1954.
 Both were found guilty; Thakur Das was sentenced
to pay a fine of Rs. 200, but in view of a previous
conviction the appellant was sentenced to one
year's rigorous imprisonment and RS. 2,000 fine,
the minimum prescribed by S. 16.
Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar
Pradesh AIR 1961 SC 631

 The appellant contended that a servant who sold

food on behalf of his employer was not liable
unless it was known that he had done so with the
knowledge that the food was adulterated.
Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1961 AIR 631

 SC Held (matter came to SC u/A 136 by way of

SLP) that S. 7 of the Act enjoins everyone,
whether an employer or a servant, not to sell
adulterated food, and anyone who contravenes
this provision is punishable under S. 16 without
proof of mens rea.
 Mens rea not Essential in five offences :

It is not essential in respect of following five offences:

(i) Waging war (s.121)
(ii) Sedition (s.124A)
(iii) Kidnapping and abduction (s. 360,361)
(iv) Counterfeiting coins (s.232)
(v) Rape (s.375)
 actus reus

Guilty Conduct (Actus Reus)

 What is this actus reus? :
 Merely possessing a guilty mind and thinking of
committing a crime is not enough. The accused
person must also act on that intention and do
something in its furtherance.
 Actus reus basically refers to an act or omission which
leads to the completion of an offence.
 Both mens rea, as well as actus reus, together are
important to create an offence.
 Actus reus can be a positive act, such as stabbing a
person to cause his death. It can also be negative act
like an omission (failure) to perform an action. For
example, driving a vehicle without a driving license is
an omission.
 3. Actus Reus
 Actus reus (prohibited act) - the guilty act or guilty
omission.
 An act is doing something that you shouldn’t and an
omission is not doing something that you should have.
 The omission of an act can also constitute the basis for
criminal liability.
 Actus reus, sometimes called the external element of a
crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when
proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with
the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability.
 All crimes require actus-reus. That is, a criminal act or an
unlawful omission of an act must have occurred.
 A person cannot be punished for thinking criminal
thoughts.
 Mere Words as Actus Reus
 Unlike thoughts, words can be considered acts in
criminal law.
 For example, threats 503 IPC, perjury-191 IPC,
conspiracy 120A IPC etc. are offenses in which words
can constitute the element of actus reus.
 It is physical element of crime.
 It has been defined as such result of human conduct
as the law seeks to prevent.
 It may be positive illegal act or negative (illegal
omission).
Actus Reus
 It is a physical result of human conduct. When
criminal policy regards such a conduct as sufficiently
harmful it is prohibited and the criminal policy
provides a sanction or penalty for its commission.
 Such human conduct may consist of acts of
commission as well as acts of omission.
 Section 32 of IPC lays down: Words referring to
acts include illegal omissions-In every part of this
Code, except where a contrary intention appears
from the context, words which refer to acts done
extend also to illegal omissions.
 word ‚illegal‛
 As regards acts of omission which make a man
criminally responsible, the rule is that no one would be
held liable for the lawful consequences of his omission
unless it is proved that he was under a legal obligation to
act.
 In other words, some duty should have been imposed
upon him by law, which he has omitted to discharge.
 Under IPC, Section 43 lays down that the word “illegal”
is applicable to everything which is an offence or which
is prohibited by law, or which furnishes a ground for a
civil action; and a person is said to be “legally bound to
do whatever it is illegal in him to omit.”
 Therefore, an illegal omission would apply to
omissions of everything which he is legally bound to
do.
requirements of actus reus varies

 Actus Reus includes all external circumstances and

consequences specified in the rule of law as
constituting the forbidden situation.
 The requirement of actus reus with reference to
place, time, person, consent, the state of mind,
possession or preparation etc. varies depending
on the definition of the crime.
requirements of actus reus varies
 The requirements of actus reus varies depending on the
definition of the crime. Actus reus may be with reference
to the following:
i. Place: In the offence of criminal trespass, house breaking
or in the aggravated forms thereof, the actus reus is in
respect of place (sections 441-462 IPC)
ii. Time: In the offences of lurking house trespass or house
breaking by night in order to commit an offence or after
preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, etc.
(Sections 456-458 IPC), the actus reus is in respect of both
place and time.
iii.Person: In offences of kidnapping and abduction,
procuring of a minor girl, etc., the actus reus is in respect
of the person (sections 359-374 IPC).
requirements of actus reus varies
iv. Consent: In the offence of rape, consent is the actus
reus.
v. State of Mind of the Victim: In offences relating to
religion (sections 295-298 IPC), or where rape is
committed when consent has been obtained by
putting the victim in fear of death or of hurt (section
375 IPC), the actus reus is with reference to the state
of mind of the victim.
vi. Possession: Possession of stolen property constitutes
the actus reus in certain offences (section 410-412
IPC).
vii. Preparation: Section 399 of IPC makes preparation
to commit dacoity an offence; therefore, the
preparation itself constitutes actus reus.
 Concurrence
 The prosecution cannot secure a conviction by only
proving mens rea or actus reus.
 The defendant must have both mens rea and actus
reus together – a guilty mind and the guilty act.
Concurrence of the two must be present.
 Typically, the prosecution needs proof that the two
occurred together, at the same time, to culminate in the
crime in question.
 The guilty mind must coexist with or at least precede
the guilty act.
 It does not necessarily matter whether mens rea was
present up to the actus reus (such as premeditated
crimes)
 Mens rea must have motivated the conduct that led to
the actus reus.
 Excetions to the actus reus
 Then again, in some cases a crime is constituted,
although the actus reus has not consummated
and no injury has resulted to any person.

 Such cases are known as inchoate crimes, like

attempt, abetment or conspiracy.
Injury
 4. Injury to another human being
(person)
 The fourth requirement of a crime is injury to another
person or to the society at large.
 In ordinary language 'injury' means a wound or hurt to the
human body.
 But section 44 has defined injury in a much wider sense to
include not only bodily harm, but also harm to one's mind,
reputation or property.
 The illegality of the harm is the gist of the offence.
 Thus, if the injury is not illegal, it is not injury within the
meaning of this section because it must imply an illegal act
or omission.
 An injury may be caused to person as in case of Hurt/Gr.
Hurt, to the property as in the case of mischief or theft, it
may be caused to reputation as in case of defamation, it
may also be caused to mind as in case of domestic violence.
No injury yet the person may be held liable

 Sometimes, by a harmful conduct no injury is caused

to another human being, yet the act may be held
liable as a crime, because in such a case harm is
caused to the society at large.
 All the public offences, especially offences against
the state, e.g. waging war against country, sedition,
etc. are instances of such harms.
 They are treated to be very grave offences and
punished very severely also.
Sometimes threat of Injury is also punishable

 In Indian Penal Code there are provisions under

which the threat of Injury is punishable. They are
as follows:
 Section 189- Threat of an injury to a public servant
 Section 190 - Threat of an injury to induce a
person to refrain from applying for protection to a
public servant
 Section 385- Putting a fear of injury on a person in
order to commit extortion
 Conclusion
 Thus, from the above it can be seen that there are
four elements that are required to constitute a
crime.
 However, there are certain exceptions to the above
rules as a crime can be committed even without a
guilty mind.
 In certain cases there is no existence physical
element i.e. actus reus but they are still crimes.
 Also, there are cases where no injury has been
caused but still they are crimes.
 Conclusion
 There are four essential elements that go to constitute a crime.
 First, the wrongdoer who must be a human being/person and must
have the capacity to commit a crime, so that he may be a fit subject
for the infliction of an appropriate punishment.
 Secondly, there should be an evil intent or mens rea on the part of
such human being. This is also known as the subjective element of a
crime.
 Thirdly, there should be an actus reus, i.e. an act committed or
omitted in furtherance of such evil intent or mens rea. This may be
called the objective element of a crime.
 Lastly, as a result of the conduct of the human being acting with an
evil mind, an injury should have been caused to another human
being or to the society at large. Such an injury should have been
caused to any other person in body, mind, reputation or property.
 If all these elements are present, generally (exceptions are there),
we would say that a crime has been constituted.
 Conclusion
 However, in some cases we find that a crime is
constituted, although there is no mens rea at all.
These are known as cases of strict
/absolute/vicarious liability.
 Then again, in some cases a crime is constituted,
although the actus reus has not consummated
and no injury has resulted to any person. Such
cases are known as inchoate crimes, like attempt,
abetment or conspiracy.