THE ACT DOES NOT CREATE GUILT TILL THE MIND IS GUILTY

THE ACT DOES NOT CREATE GUILT TILL THE MIND IS GUILTY

Author : Nishi Ved

Abstract

People’s brain are complex beings. One does not feel guilty of killing a man whereas the other even hit by a slight shoulder punch says sorry. In law how does one define the motive, the intension of person to do the crime? I would like to talk about ‘mens rea’ or guilty mind. Most relevant and easiest option in our hands on how to determine if he/she has an input in the crime is by determining ‘mens rea’.

Mens Rea is a state of mind. Under Criminal Law, ‘mens rea’ is considered as the ‘guilty intension’ and unless it is found that the accused has a guilty intension to commit the ‘crime’ he cannot be charged guilty of committing the crime.

Mens Rea, or “guilty mind” marks a very important difference in civil law & criminal law. An injury caused without mens rea might be grounds for civil liability but typically not for criminal. Criminal liability requires not only causing a prohibited harm or evil – the “actus reus” of an offence – but also a particular state of mind with regard to causing that harm or evil. This is rightly defined by the Latin maxim ‘actus reus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea’ which means the act does not make a man guilty unless his mind is also guilty.

Difference between negligence and mens rea –

Negligence in law signifies a short coming in performance of duty; lack of proper care in doing something. For example, a doctor who operates on the wrong patient or on the wrong body part because he or she misreads the chart could be considered negligent. Whereas, means rea is performing the action with the intent to cause harm to other person. For example, using loud speakers after 10pm in residential areas with an intent to disturb the public. Mens rea is a person’s thought process, their motive and intention. But in law, motive and intention are two separate ideas. Motive being the reason of the person’s action and intention being the thought of the person. A persons motive alone cannot be the reason of the crime he/she committed, intention is far more important than motive. For e.g. a prisoner has a motive to kill a jailer but without his intention to take his life, the prisoner won’t commit such crime.

Essentail for Mens Rea

There are no precise essentials for mens rea but a few to mention are:

  • Intention – State of mind of a person to harm or cause grievous hurt to other is a very significant point, as without intent it is difficult to prove that the defendant had foreseen the consequences of his/her action.
  • Motive – Motive is the reason to the crime or the cause of the crime. It is not a basic element of crime but it is mostly looked into while investigation of a criminal case.
  • Knowledge – The defendant already had the knowledge of his/her actions. He/she knew that the action they want to or has performed is a crime. It can be seen from two sides, firstly a person had knowledge and act in a wrongful manner and secondly they had knowledge about the bad consequences and chose not to act hence resulting in crime.
  • Negligence – As mentioned above it is different from mens rea but is an essential as it is due to the person carelessness. Whereas mens rea is when a person is willing to do the crime. For a negligent act to show into culpable negligence its degree shall be high enough to cause criminal liability.
  • Voluntarily – This word distinctly states that the person doing the crime had the knowledge of what they are doing and had full control of their actions. It is used only because it’s more extended meaning than ‘intentionally.’

Prominent case in this matter:

Nathulal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

 AIR 1946 SC 43

Nathulal was a dealer in food-grains in Dhar, Madhya Pradesh. According to the The Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order Amendment Act, 2006 Section 3 states that no person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a license issued in this behalf by the licensing authority, if a person stores any food grains in quantity of 100 maunds or more at any one time shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to store the food grains for the purpose of sale. Following this order, on September 30, 1960, he applied for a license as dealer to the Licensing Authorities and deposit the requisite license fee. There was no announcement made by the authorities that his license was rejected. He was purchasing food-grains time to time and sending returns to the Licensing Authorities showing the grains purchased by him. On September 2, 1961, when the Inspector of Food and Civil Supplies, Dhar, checked the godowns of the appellant he had stored 885 maunds and 21/4 seers of wheat purchasable. The said storage of the food-grains for sale which would be valid if he had a license. The District Magistrate found there were no evidence to show that he had sent the returns to the authority. When Nathulal was auctioned for the same reason he stated:

“I deposited the fee by challan for getting the license for the year 1961.I submitted the application. I continued to submit the fortnightly returns of receipts and sales of food grains regularly. No objection was raised at the time when returns were submitted. I made continuous efforts for 2 months to urge the license. The Inspector gave me assurance that I want not worry, the license are going to be sent to my residence. It was told by the Inspector Bage. I was asked to drop donation of Rs. 10 in the donation box for the treatment of soldiers. It was told that if the donation is dropped, the license are going to be issued within a day or two. I wanted to drop Rs. 5 only. In this way licenses were determined. Other dealers also continued to try to the business within the like manner. The business was done with a good intention”

The Additional District Magistrate accepted this defense. It was followed that he stored goods under the bona fide impression that the license in regard to which he had made an application was issued to him though not actually sent to him. The fact that the licensing authority did not communicate to him the rejection of his application confirmed his belief that he was granted license but was not given a substantial copy of it. Under this belief he proceeded to store the food grains by sending the relevant returns to the authority concerned. The High Court in this case states that though he had applied for a license and had deposited the requisite fee for obtaining a license and had submitted an application therein behalf and had since that date continued to submit fortnightly returns of receipts and sales of food grains regularly. Inspector had assured him from time to time that he “need not worry and the license would be sent to him at his residence”, clearly forms an impression that Nathulal knowingly carried on business as a dealer without a license. Though it was negligence on the part of the authorities, he did not give any attention and voluntarily did not take charge to find a substantial copy of the license if given any.

Conclusion:

As our Indian constitution states that even if one hundred criminals are set free no innocent shall be punished, it is imperative to identify if the person has been thinking of doing the crime, even if the crime is done unintentionally but not taking its responsibility or to abscond the authorities clearly presents the intention to escape out of it. Identifying mens rea is not just an essential in pinpointing the criminal but also keep the punishment process at ease. My only request to our judiciary is a guilty mind should not be forgiven as not today but in near future it might be fatal.