In criminal law, we must always remember- actus reus non facit reum nisi mend sit rea
That’s Latin to me-what does it mean?
It means a person cannot be held guilty just because he committed the act (actus reus). He can only be held guilty if he had the guilty mind (mens rea). For example, if someone accidentally take’s another man’s umbrella thinking it was his all along, then this act is not theft. Why you may ask? Because he had no dishonest intention.
Ah, so both the physical act and the mental intention must go together.
Exactly, so if there is either missing, no crime is made out. Though it comes with the exception of offences involving strict liability like traffic offences. And of course, our famous inchoate offences. That is the very reason why Courts often invoke this maxim while deciding whether an accused truly had the guilty intention behind the Act.
Understood.
The maxim “actus reus non facit reum mens sit rea” literally means An Act is not guilty until it comes with a guilty mind. Which means, for a criminal liability to arise, there must be a combination of actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). A mere physical act without criminal intent.
While defending the accused this maxim can be used to refer to the stance that the mere act attributed to the accused, bereft of intention, knowledge or motive, does not attract penal liability, for being hit by the principle of actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. While from the prosecution’s stance, it takes a different perspective and is used to refer to the stance that the accused not only committed the prohibited act but also did so with full knowledge and intent, thereby satisfying the principle of actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.
Courts often cite this maxim to stress that both elements must co-exist. One of the leading English Case, frequently cited in the Indian Courts, R v. Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154 established that the requirement of men rea could not be ignored unless the stautes per se excluded the same.
In State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George AIR 1865 SC 722 the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed the maxim and observed that ordinarily, mens rea is essential, but statutes can exclude it by express words or necessary implication.
Following Mayer Hans (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterating the fervent necessity of application of the maxim in criminal law set aside conviction on the grounds that the accused did not possess requisite mens rea for contravention of the Essential Commodities Act[1].
The usage and importance behind this maxim was further explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement v. MCTM Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1996) 2 SCC 471 wherein a clear distinction was made between the offences, that required mens rea and the offences thay may not.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that absence of mens rea negates culpability in NDPS Cases unless statute specifies strict liability.[2]
In practical sentences while drafting a case, this maxim can be used in the form of various sentences.
“It is a settled principle that actus reus non facit reum nisit mens sit rea, and in the present case, the alleged act was devoid of intention or knowledge, thus negating criminal liability.”
“mens rea being absent, the essential requirement of this maxim is not satisfied, and hence no offence is made out”
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held, following the maxim actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, that both act and intention must co-exist to constitute an offence.”
So, this maxim is extremely useful whenever you need to highlight the absence of intention, knowledge or motive, be it in criminal defence, bail arguments, quashing petitions and even final arguments.
[1] Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 43.
[2] State of Punjab v. Hardev Singh, 2004 (4) RCR (Criminal) 601.