INDIAN PENAL CODE (Sample Answers)
Question 1. What is meant by Mens Rea? Explain the dictum ‘Actus non Facit reum nisi mens sit rea’.
Ans- Meaning of MENS REA-
Mens rea is a technical term. In Latin it means guilty mind. In legal use it denotes the mental state, a subjective element of crime, required for the particular crime in question. The term is generally taken to mean some blameworthy mental condition, the absence of which on any particular occasion negatives the condition of crime. It is one of the essential ingredients of criminal liability. A criminal offence is committed only when an act, which is forbidden by law, is done voluntarily. The term mens rea has been given to the volition, which is the motive force behind the criminal act. An act becomes criminal only when it is done with guilty mind. Ordinarily, a crime is not committed if the mind of the person doing the act is innocent. There must be some blameworthy condition of mind before a person is made criminally liable. For instance, causing injury to an assailant in private defence is no crime but the moment injury is caused with intent to take revenge, the act becomes criminal. However, the requisite guilty state of mind varies from crime to crime. What is an evil intent for one kind of offence may not be so for another kind. For instance, in the case of murder, it is the intent to cause death; in the case of theft, an intention to steal; in the case of rape, an intention to have forcible sexual connection with a woman without her consent; in the case of receiving stolen property, knowledge that the goods were stolen, and in the case of homicide by rash and negligent act, recklessness or negligence.
The underlying principle of the doctrine of mens rea is expressed in the familiar Latin maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea the act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also guilty. The mere act of commission or deed of omission (bringing a prohibited consequence) is not enough to constitute a crime, unless it is done with wrongful or guilty intent.
Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea means “An act does not make a person guilty unless there is a guilty mind.”
It highlights that both the physical act and the corresponding guilty intention are necessary to establish criminal liability. This principle safeguards individuals from being unjustly convicted for acts committed without criminal intent.
Meaning of Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea-
Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea is a legal maxim that signifies “An act does not make anyone guilty unless there is a criminal intent or guilty mind.” This maxim is better understood in conjunction with actus reus and mens rea. If the physical act (actus reus) is not accompanied by the mental state (mens rea), it would not constitute a crime in itself.
In other words, if a person’s wrongful act is not a result of an intention to commit a crime, that act would not be considered criminal. Section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reflects the essence of this maxim. To establish the guilt of the accused, it must be demonstrated that the unlawful act was carried out with the accused’s intention to commit that act.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the guilty mind, which is the intention of the accused to commit the crime, is crucial in proving the accused’s guilt in a specific crime. For instance, where a person accidentally bumps into someone on the street without any intent to harm or cause injury.Although the physical act of bumping into someone has occurred (actus reus), there is no guilty mind or intention (mens rea) behind it. In this case, the absence of mens rea would prevent the act from constituting a crime.
Question 2- Write a note on Corporate liability.
Ans- A corporation is considered as a separate legal entity distinct from its shareholders. It can be described to imply as an association of persons for some common object and it has no strict legal or technical meaning. It is understood that criminal liability is attached where there is violation as per criminal law. The criminal liability if any act is based on the Latin maxim Actus non facit reum mens sit rea which means that to make a person or any entity liable it must be shown that there is an act or omission which is forbidden by law and with mens rea which is legally understood as having guilty mind. It comes under the category of white color crimes.
Corporate criminal liability can be defined as a crime which has been committed by an individual or association of individuals who for pursuing a common purpose or make business gain in course of their occupation commit such acts or omissions which is forbidden by law and with guilty mind where it is for the benefit of the corporation or any individual out of the association of individuals. Earlier in many situations when the concept of holding a corporation liable was not introduced, there was not any corporation held liable for any criminal act as it is an artificial legal person, so it could not be imprisoned, and corporation not being natural person, there was the absence of mens rea.
The evolution of corporate criminal responsibility is a striking instance of judicial change in law. The non-liability of a corporation soon gave way to the idea that it can be made liable for non-feasance, i.e. an omission to act. If a statutory duty is cast upon a corporation or a body incorporate, and not performed, the corporation or body incorporate can be convicted of the statutory offence. Over the decades, this principle has been well established. Viscount Haldane LC in Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd," enunciating the so-called alter ego or organic theory of the corporate criminal liability, observed:
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 very ego and centre of the personality of the corporation.... The Board of Directors are the brains of the company which is the body, and the company can and does act only through them.
In modern times, intent of managers and agents of a corporation is attributed to the corporation. A governing body of a corporation is its alter ego. A corporation, therefore, can be held criminally responsible for committing an offence by a "person" who, at the relevant time, was "the directing mind and will" of the corporation.
Courts in India have also taken a similar position. In State of Maharashtra v Syndicate Transport Co Ltd the Bombay High Court did not see any reason for exempting a corporate body from liability for crimes committed by its directors, agents or servants while acting for or on behalf of the corporation. The Supreme Court of India, in 2004 in Assistant Commr, Assessment-II, Bangalore u Velliappa Textiles Ltd delving into the question as to whether a company can be held criminally responsible by attributing it the mens rea of those who work or are working for it, has also unequivocally endorsed that the alter ego theory is applicable in India. It held that mens rea of the persons in-charge of the affairs of a corporation can be imputed to the corporation for imposing liability on it. However, it, by majority, held that a company cannot be prosecuted for offences requiring imposition of imprisonment only or of mandatory term of imprisonment coupled with fine. And where punishment provided is imprisonment and fine, the court, according to it, cannot impose or does not have a choice to impose only a fine.
However, a corporation cannot be convicted for the offences, which by nature, cannot be committed by a corporation but can only be committed by an individual human being (e.g. sexual offences, bigamy, perjury, murder, treason). Similarly, it cannot be held criminally liable for committing the offences that are punishable only by mandatory corporal or capital punishment, as a corporation obviously cannot be subjected to such a punishment. The Supreme Court, by majority, ruled that a court cannot impose criminal liability on a corporation if penal provision provides for imprisonment only or a minimum term of imprisonment plus fine.
In this regard, it may be noted that in most social legislations like the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and so on which provide that at the time of the commission of the offence, the company, as also every person who was responsible for the conduct or business of the company, shall be deemed to be liable for the offence, and if found guilty, they could be punished, not only with fine, but imprisonment as well.