Textbook: Criminal Laws in India | Legal Studies for Class 12 - Humanities/Arts PDF Download

 Page 1


Criminal Laws in India
Learning Outcomes
Students will be able to:
•	 Define the term “crime”
•	 Identify and explain the objectives of criminal law
•	 Explain the fundamental elements of crime
•	 Distinguish between intention and motive
•	 Identify and analyze the various stages of crime
•	 Distinguish between admission and confession
•	 Analyze and explain the various forms of confession
•	 Evaluate the relevance of Dying Declaration
I. What do we understand by Crime?
The term ‘Crime’ denotes an unlawful act and this unlawful act is punishable by a state. Crime as 
a concept is so broad that there is no single, universally accepted definition to it. But, for the sake 
of convenience, several countries provide statuary definitions of various kinds of unlawful activities, 
which can be identified as crimes.  A common principle about Criminal Law is that, unless an activity 
is prohibited by law, it does not qualify as a crime. Incidents of crime hurt not only the individual, but 
also, the state. Therefore, such acts are forbidden and punishable by law. The body of laws which deal 
with imposing punishments on crimes is known as Criminal Law.
II.  Objectives of Criminal Law
With the change in the social structure, society has witnessed various punishment theories and the 
radical changes that they have undergone from the traditional to the modern level and the crucial 
problems relating to them. Kenny wrote: “it cannot be said that the theories of criminal punishment 
current amongst our judges and legislators have assumed....”either a coherent or even a stable form. 
Malinowski believes all the legally effective institutions.... are.... means of cutting short an illegal or 
intolerable state of affairs, of restoring the equilibrium in the social life and of giving the vent to the 
feelings of oppression and injustice felt by the individuals.
Five objectives are widely accepted for enforcement of the criminal law by punishments: retribution, 
deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restoration. These objectives vary across jurisdictions.
Retribution - This theory basically deals with ‘righting of balance’. If a criminal has done a wrong 
towards a person or property, he needs to be given a penalty in a manner which balances out the 
wrong done. For example, if a person has committed murder, he can be delivered capital punishment 
to balance out the suffering caused to the victim and his or her family.
Deterrence - Deterrence serves as a major tool in maintaining the general law and order in the 
CHAPTER
4(C)
Page 2


Criminal Laws in India
Learning Outcomes
Students will be able to:
•	 Define the term “crime”
•	 Identify and explain the objectives of criminal law
•	 Explain the fundamental elements of crime
•	 Distinguish between intention and motive
•	 Identify and analyze the various stages of crime
•	 Distinguish between admission and confession
•	 Analyze and explain the various forms of confession
•	 Evaluate the relevance of Dying Declaration
I. What do we understand by Crime?
The term ‘Crime’ denotes an unlawful act and this unlawful act is punishable by a state. Crime as 
a concept is so broad that there is no single, universally accepted definition to it. But, for the sake 
of convenience, several countries provide statuary definitions of various kinds of unlawful activities, 
which can be identified as crimes.  A common principle about Criminal Law is that, unless an activity 
is prohibited by law, it does not qualify as a crime. Incidents of crime hurt not only the individual, but 
also, the state. Therefore, such acts are forbidden and punishable by law. The body of laws which deal 
with imposing punishments on crimes is known as Criminal Law.
II.  Objectives of Criminal Law
With the change in the social structure, society has witnessed various punishment theories and the 
radical changes that they have undergone from the traditional to the modern level and the crucial 
problems relating to them. Kenny wrote: “it cannot be said that the theories of criminal punishment 
current amongst our judges and legislators have assumed....”either a coherent or even a stable form. 
Malinowski believes all the legally effective institutions.... are.... means of cutting short an illegal or 
intolerable state of affairs, of restoring the equilibrium in the social life and of giving the vent to the 
feelings of oppression and injustice felt by the individuals.
Five objectives are widely accepted for enforcement of the criminal law by punishments: retribution, 
deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restoration. These objectives vary across jurisdictions.
Retribution - This theory basically deals with ‘righting of balance’. If a criminal has done a wrong 
towards a person or property, he needs to be given a penalty in a manner which balances out the 
wrong done. For example, if a person has committed murder, he can be delivered capital punishment 
to balance out the suffering caused to the victim and his or her family.
Deterrence - Deterrence serves as a major tool in maintaining the general law and order in the 
CHAPTER
4(C)
3
society, especially from the perspective of Crime. Criminal acts are penalized so as to deter individuals 
from repeating it or even entering into it in the first place.
Incapacitation - The objective of this theory is to segregate the criminals from the rest of the society. 
For the crimes committed, they suffer a kind of banishment by staying in prisons and in some cases, 
they are also subject to capital punishment.
Rehabilitation - Aims at transforming an offender into a valuable member of society. Its primary 
goal is to prevent further offense by convincing the offender that their conduct was wrong.
Restoration - This is a victim-oriented theory of punishment. The goal is to repair, through state 
authority, any injury inflicted upon the victim by the offender. For example, one who embezzles will 
be required to repay the amount improperly acquired. Restoration is commonly combined with other 
main goals of criminal justice and is closely related to concepts in the civil law, i.e., returning the victim 
to his or her original position before the injury.
IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT
If a wrongdoer says that he was ignorant of the consequences of the act done by him, he would 
not be excused. Because everybody is supposed to know the law of the land, which is guided by 
the maxim ‘Ignorantia juris non excusat’ means ignorance of law is no excuse It is a Latin maxim 
meaning ignorance of law or lack of knowledge or mistake of law about legal requirement is not an 
excuse and hence liability arises in such cases.
III. Criminal Laws in India are broadly covered by the following 
legislations:
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Criminal Procedure Code 1973
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
1.1 Fundamental elements of a crime
 a. Mens rea or guilty intention 
 b. Actus reus or illegal act or omission
To be classified as a crime, the act of doing something bad (actus reus) must be usually accompanied 
by the intention to do something bad (mens rea). A crime is said to exist usually when both these 
elements are present. The principle of actus reus and mens rea are embedded in a Latin maxim, 
which is:
“actus non Iacit reum nisi mens sit rea”
This latin maxim means that an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also legally 
blameworthy.
In other words, for a physical act to be termed a crime, it must be accompanied by the necessary 
mental element. Unless this mental element is present, no act is usually criminal in nature. So, all 
crimes have a physical element and a mental element, usually called actus reus and mens rea 
respectively.
Page 3


Criminal Laws in India
Learning Outcomes
Students will be able to:
•	 Define the term “crime”
•	 Identify and explain the objectives of criminal law
•	 Explain the fundamental elements of crime
•	 Distinguish between intention and motive
•	 Identify and analyze the various stages of crime
•	 Distinguish between admission and confession
•	 Analyze and explain the various forms of confession
•	 Evaluate the relevance of Dying Declaration
I. What do we understand by Crime?
The term ‘Crime’ denotes an unlawful act and this unlawful act is punishable by a state. Crime as 
a concept is so broad that there is no single, universally accepted definition to it. But, for the sake 
of convenience, several countries provide statuary definitions of various kinds of unlawful activities, 
which can be identified as crimes.  A common principle about Criminal Law is that, unless an activity 
is prohibited by law, it does not qualify as a crime. Incidents of crime hurt not only the individual, but 
also, the state. Therefore, such acts are forbidden and punishable by law. The body of laws which deal 
with imposing punishments on crimes is known as Criminal Law.
II.  Objectives of Criminal Law
With the change in the social structure, society has witnessed various punishment theories and the 
radical changes that they have undergone from the traditional to the modern level and the crucial 
problems relating to them. Kenny wrote: “it cannot be said that the theories of criminal punishment 
current amongst our judges and legislators have assumed....”either a coherent or even a stable form. 
Malinowski believes all the legally effective institutions.... are.... means of cutting short an illegal or 
intolerable state of affairs, of restoring the equilibrium in the social life and of giving the vent to the 
feelings of oppression and injustice felt by the individuals.
Five objectives are widely accepted for enforcement of the criminal law by punishments: retribution, 
deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restoration. These objectives vary across jurisdictions.
Retribution - This theory basically deals with ‘righting of balance’. If a criminal has done a wrong 
towards a person or property, he needs to be given a penalty in a manner which balances out the 
wrong done. For example, if a person has committed murder, he can be delivered capital punishment 
to balance out the suffering caused to the victim and his or her family.
Deterrence - Deterrence serves as a major tool in maintaining the general law and order in the 
CHAPTER
4(C)
3
society, especially from the perspective of Crime. Criminal acts are penalized so as to deter individuals 
from repeating it or even entering into it in the first place.
Incapacitation - The objective of this theory is to segregate the criminals from the rest of the society. 
For the crimes committed, they suffer a kind of banishment by staying in prisons and in some cases, 
they are also subject to capital punishment.
Rehabilitation - Aims at transforming an offender into a valuable member of society. Its primary 
goal is to prevent further offense by convincing the offender that their conduct was wrong.
Restoration - This is a victim-oriented theory of punishment. The goal is to repair, through state 
authority, any injury inflicted upon the victim by the offender. For example, one who embezzles will 
be required to repay the amount improperly acquired. Restoration is commonly combined with other 
main goals of criminal justice and is closely related to concepts in the civil law, i.e., returning the victim 
to his or her original position before the injury.
IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT
If a wrongdoer says that he was ignorant of the consequences of the act done by him, he would 
not be excused. Because everybody is supposed to know the law of the land, which is guided by 
the maxim ‘Ignorantia juris non excusat’ means ignorance of law is no excuse It is a Latin maxim 
meaning ignorance of law or lack of knowledge or mistake of law about legal requirement is not an 
excuse and hence liability arises in such cases.
III. Criminal Laws in India are broadly covered by the following 
legislations:
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Criminal Procedure Code 1973
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
1.1 Fundamental elements of a crime
 a. Mens rea or guilty intention 
 b. Actus reus or illegal act or omission
To be classified as a crime, the act of doing something bad (actus reus) must be usually accompanied 
by the intention to do something bad (mens rea). A crime is said to exist usually when both these 
elements are present. The principle of actus reus and mens rea are embedded in a Latin maxim, 
which is:
“actus non Iacit reum nisi mens sit rea”
This latin maxim means that an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also legally 
blameworthy.
In other words, for a physical act to be termed a crime, it must be accompanied by the necessary 
mental element. Unless this mental element is present, no act is usually criminal in nature. So, all 
crimes have a physical element and a mental element, usually called actus reus and mens rea 
respectively.
114
What is actus reus?
?	 the word actus connotes a ‘deed’ which is a physical result of human conduct.
?	 the word reus means ‘forbidden by law.
actus reus in common parlance means a ‘guilty act’. It is made up of three constituent parts, namely: -
1.  An action or a conduct
2.  The result of that action or conduct
3. Such act/conduct being prohibited by law
Therefore, one can say that actus reus is an act which is bad or prohibited, blameworthy or culpable. 
Now, there are certain unique situations when the act in itself may appear to be a criminal act, yet it 
cannot be termed as actus reus
Illustrations:
An executioner’s job is to hang (no actus reus)
An army man kills as a part of his duty (no actus reus)
Does an act in actus reus include omissions?
An omission is nothing but inaction or not doing something. 
Section 32 in The Indian Penal Code
32. 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.
Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) clarifies that acts which may be considered as Crime 
include “illegal omissions”. But mere moral omissions of not doing something would not complete 
the requirement of actus reus.
Illustration: A boy is drowning in the swimming pool of a resort. A man who is beside the pool does 
not make any attempt to save this boy. This is a moral omission of not saving someone’s life. The 
man cannot be held criminally liable for such an omission.
But in the same scenario, if there is a lifeguard on duty at this resort, and if he does not make 
any attempt to save the boy drowning in the pool, then he can be held criminally liable for such 
omission.
What is Mens Rea?
Mens rea generally means ‘ill intention’, guilty mind/ intent. The constituents of mens rea are:
1.  There must be a mind at fault/intention to constitute a crime.
2.  The act becomes criminal when the actor does it with a guilty mind.
Note: causing injury to an assailant in self-defence is not a crime, but the moment injury is caused 
with intent to take revenge, the act becomes criminal.
Therefore, for any crime to exist, the physical element of crime needs to be complemented by the 
mental element. The concept of mens rea evolved in England during the 17 Century. During this 
Page 4


Criminal Laws in India
Learning Outcomes
Students will be able to:
•	 Define the term “crime”
•	 Identify and explain the objectives of criminal law
•	 Explain the fundamental elements of crime
•	 Distinguish between intention and motive
•	 Identify and analyze the various stages of crime
•	 Distinguish between admission and confession
•	 Analyze and explain the various forms of confession
•	 Evaluate the relevance of Dying Declaration
I. What do we understand by Crime?
The term ‘Crime’ denotes an unlawful act and this unlawful act is punishable by a state. Crime as 
a concept is so broad that there is no single, universally accepted definition to it. But, for the sake 
of convenience, several countries provide statuary definitions of various kinds of unlawful activities, 
which can be identified as crimes.  A common principle about Criminal Law is that, unless an activity 
is prohibited by law, it does not qualify as a crime. Incidents of crime hurt not only the individual, but 
also, the state. Therefore, such acts are forbidden and punishable by law. The body of laws which deal 
with imposing punishments on crimes is known as Criminal Law.
II.  Objectives of Criminal Law
With the change in the social structure, society has witnessed various punishment theories and the 
radical changes that they have undergone from the traditional to the modern level and the crucial 
problems relating to them. Kenny wrote: “it cannot be said that the theories of criminal punishment 
current amongst our judges and legislators have assumed....”either a coherent or even a stable form. 
Malinowski believes all the legally effective institutions.... are.... means of cutting short an illegal or 
intolerable state of affairs, of restoring the equilibrium in the social life and of giving the vent to the 
feelings of oppression and injustice felt by the individuals.
Five objectives are widely accepted for enforcement of the criminal law by punishments: retribution, 
deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restoration. These objectives vary across jurisdictions.
Retribution - This theory basically deals with ‘righting of balance’. If a criminal has done a wrong 
towards a person or property, he needs to be given a penalty in a manner which balances out the 
wrong done. For example, if a person has committed murder, he can be delivered capital punishment 
to balance out the suffering caused to the victim and his or her family.
Deterrence - Deterrence serves as a major tool in maintaining the general law and order in the 
CHAPTER
4(C)
3
society, especially from the perspective of Crime. Criminal acts are penalized so as to deter individuals 
from repeating it or even entering into it in the first place.
Incapacitation - The objective of this theory is to segregate the criminals from the rest of the society. 
For the crimes committed, they suffer a kind of banishment by staying in prisons and in some cases, 
they are also subject to capital punishment.
Rehabilitation - Aims at transforming an offender into a valuable member of society. Its primary 
goal is to prevent further offense by convincing the offender that their conduct was wrong.
Restoration - This is a victim-oriented theory of punishment. The goal is to repair, through state 
authority, any injury inflicted upon the victim by the offender. For example, one who embezzles will 
be required to repay the amount improperly acquired. Restoration is commonly combined with other 
main goals of criminal justice and is closely related to concepts in the civil law, i.e., returning the victim 
to his or her original position before the injury.
IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT
If a wrongdoer says that he was ignorant of the consequences of the act done by him, he would 
not be excused. Because everybody is supposed to know the law of the land, which is guided by 
the maxim ‘Ignorantia juris non excusat’ means ignorance of law is no excuse It is a Latin maxim 
meaning ignorance of law or lack of knowledge or mistake of law about legal requirement is not an 
excuse and hence liability arises in such cases.
III. Criminal Laws in India are broadly covered by the following 
legislations:
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Criminal Procedure Code 1973
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
1.1 Fundamental elements of a crime
 a. Mens rea or guilty intention 
 b. Actus reus or illegal act or omission
To be classified as a crime, the act of doing something bad (actus reus) must be usually accompanied 
by the intention to do something bad (mens rea). A crime is said to exist usually when both these 
elements are present. The principle of actus reus and mens rea are embedded in a Latin maxim, 
which is:
“actus non Iacit reum nisi mens sit rea”
This latin maxim means that an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also legally 
blameworthy.
In other words, for a physical act to be termed a crime, it must be accompanied by the necessary 
mental element. Unless this mental element is present, no act is usually criminal in nature. So, all 
crimes have a physical element and a mental element, usually called actus reus and mens rea 
respectively.
114
What is actus reus?
?	 the word actus connotes a ‘deed’ which is a physical result of human conduct.
?	 the word reus means ‘forbidden by law.
actus reus in common parlance means a ‘guilty act’. It is made up of three constituent parts, namely: -
1.  An action or a conduct
2.  The result of that action or conduct
3. Such act/conduct being prohibited by law
Therefore, one can say that actus reus is an act which is bad or prohibited, blameworthy or culpable. 
Now, there are certain unique situations when the act in itself may appear to be a criminal act, yet it 
cannot be termed as actus reus
Illustrations:
An executioner’s job is to hang (no actus reus)
An army man kills as a part of his duty (no actus reus)
Does an act in actus reus include omissions?
An omission is nothing but inaction or not doing something. 
Section 32 in The Indian Penal Code
32. 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.
Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) clarifies that acts which may be considered as Crime 
include “illegal omissions”. But mere moral omissions of not doing something would not complete 
the requirement of actus reus.
Illustration: A boy is drowning in the swimming pool of a resort. A man who is beside the pool does 
not make any attempt to save this boy. This is a moral omission of not saving someone’s life. The 
man cannot be held criminally liable for such an omission.
But in the same scenario, if there is a lifeguard on duty at this resort, and if he does not make 
any attempt to save the boy drowning in the pool, then he can be held criminally liable for such 
omission.
What is Mens Rea?
Mens rea generally means ‘ill intention’, guilty mind/ intent. The constituents of mens rea are:
1.  There must be a mind at fault/intention to constitute a crime.
2.  The act becomes criminal when the actor does it with a guilty mind.
Note: causing injury to an assailant in self-defence is not a crime, but the moment injury is caused 
with intent to take revenge, the act becomes criminal.
Therefore, for any crime to exist, the physical element of crime needs to be complemented by the 
mental element. The concept of mens rea evolved in England during the 17 Century. During this 
115
period, the judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was 
accompanied by a guilty state of mind.
In India, the word mens rea, as such, is not defined in the IPC, but its essence is reflected in almost all 
the provisions of the Code. For framing a charge for an offence under the IPC, the traditional rule of 
existence of mens rea is to be followed. 
This rule has been reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra v. Mayer 
Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722. 
Facts of the case
The respondent, Mayer Hans George, a German smuggler, left Zurich by plane on 27th November 
1962 with 34 kilos of gold concealed on his person to be delivered in Manila. The plane arrived at 
Bombay on 28th of November. The Customs Authorities, as a part of their duties, inspected to check 
if any gold was dispatched by any traveller and looked through George, seized his gold and accused 
him of the offence under sec 8(10) and 23(1-A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. This section 
is read with a notification dated November 8, 1962, of the RBI which was published in the Gazette of 
India on 24th of November. George was initially acquitted by the High Court, but the further appeal 
was made by the state in the court of law.
Issues presented before the court
Whether the respondent is guilty of bringing gold in India under sec 8(1) and 23(1-A) of the FERA 
which was published in the Gazette of India on 24th November 1962?
The State of Maharashtra contended that the act was passed keeping in mind the pirating of gold 
since it has become the major financial concern of the nation. Moreover, looking at the importance of 
the act it can be inferred that the mens rea is an irrelevant element in assuming the culpability of the 
offender. The strict adherence of the act refutes such assumptions and demonstrates that mens rea is 
not a fundamental element of the offence.
However, the respondents were of the view that mens rea is a fundamental element of any criminal 
offence and George was not aware of the notification published by the Reserve Bank. It was contended 
that a person who was not aware of the Indian Provision and has no intention to bring gold in India 
cannot be said to possess the intent to break the law and hence should not be prosecuted under the 
act.
Decision- It was held in this case that, “Mens rea by necessary implication can be excluded from 
a statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of a statute would 
otherwise be defeated and its exclusion enables those put under strict liability by their act or omission 
to assist the promotion of the law.”
The court said that even though mens rea is an essential requirement to commit a crime but regardless 
of that the statutory provision can exclude the mental element. The express words of the statute can 
exclude the mens rea as an essential ingredient of the crime. This may be done for various reasons, 
for instance, to promote public welfare and activities or to eradicate social evils. The statute which 
complies strict liability helps the offender to assist the state in the enforcement of the law.
1.2 Distinction between Intention and Motive
As we have seen, intention or mental element is one of the foremost requirements in order to make 
someone liable for a crime. But a common misconception is that motive and intention are the same 
concepts when it comes to Crime. Thus, it is important to understand the fine distinction between 
these two terms.
Page 5


Criminal Laws in India
Learning Outcomes
Students will be able to:
•	 Define the term “crime”
•	 Identify and explain the objectives of criminal law
•	 Explain the fundamental elements of crime
•	 Distinguish between intention and motive
•	 Identify and analyze the various stages of crime
•	 Distinguish between admission and confession
•	 Analyze and explain the various forms of confession
•	 Evaluate the relevance of Dying Declaration
I. What do we understand by Crime?
The term ‘Crime’ denotes an unlawful act and this unlawful act is punishable by a state. Crime as 
a concept is so broad that there is no single, universally accepted definition to it. But, for the sake 
of convenience, several countries provide statuary definitions of various kinds of unlawful activities, 
which can be identified as crimes.  A common principle about Criminal Law is that, unless an activity 
is prohibited by law, it does not qualify as a crime. Incidents of crime hurt not only the individual, but 
also, the state. Therefore, such acts are forbidden and punishable by law. The body of laws which deal 
with imposing punishments on crimes is known as Criminal Law.
II.  Objectives of Criminal Law
With the change in the social structure, society has witnessed various punishment theories and the 
radical changes that they have undergone from the traditional to the modern level and the crucial 
problems relating to them. Kenny wrote: “it cannot be said that the theories of criminal punishment 
current amongst our judges and legislators have assumed....”either a coherent or even a stable form. 
Malinowski believes all the legally effective institutions.... are.... means of cutting short an illegal or 
intolerable state of affairs, of restoring the equilibrium in the social life and of giving the vent to the 
feelings of oppression and injustice felt by the individuals.
Five objectives are widely accepted for enforcement of the criminal law by punishments: retribution, 
deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation and restoration. These objectives vary across jurisdictions.
Retribution - This theory basically deals with ‘righting of balance’. If a criminal has done a wrong 
towards a person or property, he needs to be given a penalty in a manner which balances out the 
wrong done. For example, if a person has committed murder, he can be delivered capital punishment 
to balance out the suffering caused to the victim and his or her family.
Deterrence - Deterrence serves as a major tool in maintaining the general law and order in the 
CHAPTER
4(C)
3
society, especially from the perspective of Crime. Criminal acts are penalized so as to deter individuals 
from repeating it or even entering into it in the first place.
Incapacitation - The objective of this theory is to segregate the criminals from the rest of the society. 
For the crimes committed, they suffer a kind of banishment by staying in prisons and in some cases, 
they are also subject to capital punishment.
Rehabilitation - Aims at transforming an offender into a valuable member of society. Its primary 
goal is to prevent further offense by convincing the offender that their conduct was wrong.
Restoration - This is a victim-oriented theory of punishment. The goal is to repair, through state 
authority, any injury inflicted upon the victim by the offender. For example, one who embezzles will 
be required to repay the amount improperly acquired. Restoration is commonly combined with other 
main goals of criminal justice and is closely related to concepts in the civil law, i.e., returning the victim 
to his or her original position before the injury.
IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT
If a wrongdoer says that he was ignorant of the consequences of the act done by him, he would 
not be excused. Because everybody is supposed to know the law of the land, which is guided by 
the maxim ‘Ignorantia juris non excusat’ means ignorance of law is no excuse It is a Latin maxim 
meaning ignorance of law or lack of knowledge or mistake of law about legal requirement is not an 
excuse and hence liability arises in such cases.
III. Criminal Laws in India are broadly covered by the following 
legislations:
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Criminal Procedure Code 1973
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
1.1 Fundamental elements of a crime
 a. Mens rea or guilty intention 
 b. Actus reus or illegal act or omission
To be classified as a crime, the act of doing something bad (actus reus) must be usually accompanied 
by the intention to do something bad (mens rea). A crime is said to exist usually when both these 
elements are present. The principle of actus reus and mens rea are embedded in a Latin maxim, 
which is:
“actus non Iacit reum nisi mens sit rea”
This latin maxim means that an act does not make one guilty unless the mind is also legally 
blameworthy.
In other words, for a physical act to be termed a crime, it must be accompanied by the necessary 
mental element. Unless this mental element is present, no act is usually criminal in nature. So, all 
crimes have a physical element and a mental element, usually called actus reus and mens rea 
respectively.
114
What is actus reus?
?	 the word actus connotes a ‘deed’ which is a physical result of human conduct.
?	 the word reus means ‘forbidden by law.
actus reus in common parlance means a ‘guilty act’. It is made up of three constituent parts, namely: -
1.  An action or a conduct
2.  The result of that action or conduct
3. Such act/conduct being prohibited by law
Therefore, one can say that actus reus is an act which is bad or prohibited, blameworthy or culpable. 
Now, there are certain unique situations when the act in itself may appear to be a criminal act, yet it 
cannot be termed as actus reus
Illustrations:
An executioner’s job is to hang (no actus reus)
An army man kills as a part of his duty (no actus reus)
Does an act in actus reus include omissions?
An omission is nothing but inaction or not doing something. 
Section 32 in The Indian Penal Code
32. 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.
Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) clarifies that acts which may be considered as Crime 
include “illegal omissions”. But mere moral omissions of not doing something would not complete 
the requirement of actus reus.
Illustration: A boy is drowning in the swimming pool of a resort. A man who is beside the pool does 
not make any attempt to save this boy. This is a moral omission of not saving someone’s life. The 
man cannot be held criminally liable for such an omission.
But in the same scenario, if there is a lifeguard on duty at this resort, and if he does not make 
any attempt to save the boy drowning in the pool, then he can be held criminally liable for such 
omission.
What is Mens Rea?
Mens rea generally means ‘ill intention’, guilty mind/ intent. The constituents of mens rea are:
1.  There must be a mind at fault/intention to constitute a crime.
2.  The act becomes criminal when the actor does it with a guilty mind.
Note: causing injury to an assailant in self-defence is not a crime, but the moment injury is caused 
with intent to take revenge, the act becomes criminal.
Therefore, for any crime to exist, the physical element of crime needs to be complemented by the 
mental element. The concept of mens rea evolved in England during the 17 Century. During this 
115
period, the judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was 
accompanied by a guilty state of mind.
In India, the word mens rea, as such, is not defined in the IPC, but its essence is reflected in almost all 
the provisions of the Code. For framing a charge for an offence under the IPC, the traditional rule of 
existence of mens rea is to be followed. 
This rule has been reiterated by the Supreme Court of India in State of Maharashtra v. Mayer 
Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722. 
Facts of the case
The respondent, Mayer Hans George, a German smuggler, left Zurich by plane on 27th November 
1962 with 34 kilos of gold concealed on his person to be delivered in Manila. The plane arrived at 
Bombay on 28th of November. The Customs Authorities, as a part of their duties, inspected to check 
if any gold was dispatched by any traveller and looked through George, seized his gold and accused 
him of the offence under sec 8(10) and 23(1-A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. This section 
is read with a notification dated November 8, 1962, of the RBI which was published in the Gazette of 
India on 24th of November. George was initially acquitted by the High Court, but the further appeal 
was made by the state in the court of law.
Issues presented before the court
Whether the respondent is guilty of bringing gold in India under sec 8(1) and 23(1-A) of the FERA 
which was published in the Gazette of India on 24th November 1962?
The State of Maharashtra contended that the act was passed keeping in mind the pirating of gold 
since it has become the major financial concern of the nation. Moreover, looking at the importance of 
the act it can be inferred that the mens rea is an irrelevant element in assuming the culpability of the 
offender. The strict adherence of the act refutes such assumptions and demonstrates that mens rea is 
not a fundamental element of the offence.
However, the respondents were of the view that mens rea is a fundamental element of any criminal 
offence and George was not aware of the notification published by the Reserve Bank. It was contended 
that a person who was not aware of the Indian Provision and has no intention to bring gold in India 
cannot be said to possess the intent to break the law and hence should not be prosecuted under the 
act.
Decision- It was held in this case that, “Mens rea by necessary implication can be excluded from 
a statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of a statute would 
otherwise be defeated and its exclusion enables those put under strict liability by their act or omission 
to assist the promotion of the law.”
The court said that even though mens rea is an essential requirement to commit a crime but regardless 
of that the statutory provision can exclude the mental element. The express words of the statute can 
exclude the mens rea as an essential ingredient of the crime. This may be done for various reasons, 
for instance, to promote public welfare and activities or to eradicate social evils. The statute which 
complies strict liability helps the offender to assist the state in the enforcement of the law.
1.2 Distinction between Intention and Motive
As we have seen, intention or mental element is one of the foremost requirements in order to make 
someone liable for a crime. But a common misconception is that motive and intention are the same 
concepts when it comes to Crime. Thus, it is important to understand the fine distinction between 
these two terms.
116
In Re Sreerangayee case (1973) 1 MLJ 231, the woman in sheer destitution and impoverishment 
attempted to kill herself after failing in all the ways to arrange for food for her starving children, but 
since she knowingly (mens rea) did a prohibitive act of attempting suicide (actus reus), she was held 
guilty by the court.
The meaning of doing an act intentionally in criminal law means something that is done wilfully and 
not accidentally or mistakenly. The person doing the act is well aware of the consequences or the 
outcomes of his action or omission. That is all what is required for affixing criminal liability. It does 
not matter, as we say in ordinary language, whether an act was done with good intent or bad intent. 
If the act which is prohibited (actus reus) is done wilfully, knowingly or with awareness of the resulting 
consequences then the same will cause liability in criminal law.
Motive, on the other hand, is the ulterior objective behind doing an act. It is the driving force behind 
intention or commission of an act. The criminal law does not take into account motive in affixing 
criminal liability or in determining criminal culpability. This is the reason why the criminal law does 
not care whether one has stolen a loaf of bread to fed a starving person or stolen medicine to save 
someone’s life, as long as it is a prohibited act, done knowingly.
In Nathuni Y adav and Ors vs State of Bihar and another 1997 SC (34) ACC 576, the Court held that 
“Motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. One cannot normally 
see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. 
Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes. Many a 
murder have been committed without any known or prominent motive”. The Court further stated 
that Motive is a psychological phenomenon. Merely because failing to translate the mental state 
of the accused does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the assailant. 
The motive for an offence need not be necessarily proportionately grave to commit the grave 
offence. Therefore, establishing a sufficient motive for committing the offence is not a prerequisite 
for conviction.
1.3 Stages of Crime
Any Crime has a few key stages to it, as indicated in the box alongside. Ordinarily, the first two stages 
(intention and preparation) do not give rise to any form of criminal liability. This implies that merely 
having an intention to commit a criminal act is not punishable, nor is making preparation for the 
same. Liability in criminal law arises when one goes beyond the stage of preparation and attempts to 
do the forbidden act. The stages can be explained as under-
•	 Intention - The first stage in committing a crime is to have criminal intent and this is known as 
mental stage. The law does not take notice of an intention, mere intention to commit an offence 
not followed by any act, cannot constitute an offence. The obvious reason for not prosecuting 
the accused at this stage is that it is very difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilty mind of 
a person.
•	 Preparation – The second stage refers to arranging 
all the essential steps to carry out the intended criminal 
act. Preparation is not unlawful in itself since it is 
difficult to prove that the essential preparations were 
made for the commission of the crime. However, in 
some exceptional circumstances, mere preparation is 
also punished.
•	 Intention – First stage of crime
•	 Preparation- Second stage of 
crime
•	 Attempt- Third Stage of crime
•	 Commission- Final stage of 
crime