Stages and Elements of Crime | Criminal Law - CLAT PG PDF Download

Introduction

• A crime is an unlawful act that is punishable by the state or legal authority. It is an act that causes harm not only to an individual but also to the community, society, or the state. Such acts are prohibited and penalized by law.
• While every crime breaches the law, not every violation of the law constitutes a crime.
• Factors like greed, anger, jealousy, revenge, or pride often drive individuals to commit crimes.

Elements of a Crime

• Legal Nature: The elements of a crime must be defined by law.
• Actus Reus: This refers to the human conduct involved in the crime.
• Causation: The human conduct must cause harm.
• Harm: The act must cause harm to someone or something.
• Concurrence: There must be a concurrence of state of mind and human conduct.
• Mens Rea: This refers to the guilty state of mind.
• Punishment: There must be a provision for punishment.

Blameworthy Condition of Mind

• The essential ingredient of a crime is the blameworthy condition of mind. If this is absent, a person cannot be held liable for the crime.

Stages of Crime

• Intention: This is the first stage of a crime where the perpetrator forms the intent to commit the crime.
• Preparation: This is the second stage where the perpetrator prepares to commit the crime.
• Attempt: This is the third stage where there is a direct movement towards the execution of the act after preparation.
• Accomplishment: This is the final stage where the crime is completed.

Act to be Voluntary

• Crime is a result of individual choice and will. The act must be voluntary, meaning it is done out of conscious choice. A voluntary act is one that is not entirely the result of independent will and is committed with extreme disregard for human life. For instance, a person who loads a gun with the intention to harm others is considered liable for any harm caused by the accidental discharge of the weapon, as loading the gun is seen as a voluntary action.

Fundamental Elements of a Crime

To establish criminal liability, a crime can be broken down into elements that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The four basic elements of a crime are as follows:

1) Human Being: Section 11

• The first element of a crime requires that a human being must commit a wrongful act. Non-living things or animals are not considered in this category. In ancient times, under the ritter bit theory, animals could be punished for causing harm. For example, a dog could be punished for biting someone, or a horse could be killed for kicking a person.
• However, under the Indian Penal Code, if an animal causes injury, the owner is held liable, not the animal. The concept of a 'person' is defined in Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code and includes companies, associations, or bodies of persons, whether incorporated or not. This means that artificial or juridical persons, such as corporations created by law, can also be held criminally liable.

2) Mens Rea or Guilty Intention

• The second element of a crime is mens rea, which refers to the guilty mind or intention behind the act. This concept is derived from the maxim Actus Non-Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea, which means that a person cannot be punished in a criminal proceeding unless they have a guilty mind.
• Mens rea can be understood as a guilty or wrongful purpose, criminal intent, guilty knowledge, or willfulness. It is important to establish that the accused had a guilty mind at the time of committing the act. Motive and intention are both crucial in proving criminal liability. A wrong motive combined with guilty intention is necessary to establish criminal liability.

3) Actus Reus or Illegal Act or Omission

• Actus reus refers to the physical act or omission that constitutes a crime. It is a Latin term used to describe a criminal activity resulting from voluntary bodily movement. Actus reus can be classified into two types: commission and omission.
• Commission refers to a criminal activity that harms another person or damages property due to voluntary bodily movement. For example, physical assault, murder, theft, or extortion.
• Omission refers to a failure to act, which can also be considered a criminal act. It involves situations where a person fails to warn others of a dangerous situation or neglects a duty that leads to harm. For example, failing to feed an infant in your care or not completing a work-related task that results in an accident.

4) Injury Under Section 44

• The fourth element of a crime is the requirement of injury, which must be caused to another person or to society at large. According to Section 44 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, injury is defined as any harm illegally caused to a person in body, mind, reputation, or property by another person.
• These elements of a crime are a set of facts that must be proven to convict a defendant. Criminal elements are outlined in criminal statutes or cases in jurisdictions that allow for common law crimes.

Actus Reus 

• Actus Reus is a Latin term that refers to the "guilty act" or the physical act involved in committing a crime. It must be a voluntary action, such as taking a bracelet in a theft, rather than an involuntary act. An example of an involuntary act is given in the case of Hill vs. Baxter, where someone loses control of a car due to being attacked by a swarm of bees or experiencing a heart attack.
• Actus Reus represents a result of human conduct that the law aims to prevent. It is a physical aspect of a crime and is one of the two main components of criminal law, the other being Mens Rea.
• While Actus Reus refers to the wrongful act or task committed by a person, Mens Rea pertains to the mental state or intent behind such acts. The Latin maxim Actus Non-Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea explains that a person can only be held liable for a crime if a guilty mind accompanies a wrongful act. This maxim helps determine whether an act is considered a crime and distinguishes between intentional and unintentional actions. Severe penalties are reserved for crimes committed with specific intent, while unintentional acts may not carry the same consequences. However, no breach of law goes unpunished.

General Principles Of Actus Reus

• The general rule of Actus Reus states that there is no liability for failing to act unless the defendant was under a legal duty to take positive action at the time of omission.
• Legal duty can arise from statute, such as the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (UK), which holds individuals over the age of 16 accountable for failing to care for a child under 16.
• Legal duty can also arise from a contract, where failure to perform a contractual obligation may lead to criminal liability.
• There is a duty owed to family members, as demonstrated in the case of R v. Gibbons and Proctor, where a man and his wife were found guilty of murder for failing to feed the man's daughter.
• A mere omission to act does not result in criminal liability unless a statute specifically imposes a duty or common law establishes such a duty. It is important to differentiate between moral duty and legal duty in this context.

Causation in Crime

• Causation doctrine is centered around determining whether the defendant's illegal action was a significant and operative cause of the harm that occurred. The court often uses the 'but for' test to establish this. For instance, if Albert poisons Victoria, but she dies of a heart attack before the poison takes effect, the timing of events matters. Similarly, shooting someone with a terminal illness can be considered a cause of death because, without the illegal act, they would not have died at that specific time.
• The 'but for' test can involve multiple potential causes, leading to the need for legal causation. This determines whether the defendant's action is the operative and substantial cause of harm. This is particularly relevant when the actions or inactions of another person or the victim themselves alter the usual course of events. This concept is known as nervous Actus intervenes and a new intervening act.
• Professor Hard and Honor explain this principle by differentiating between factual background conditions and actual causes. For example, to start a fire, you need a dropped match, oxygen, and combustible material. While oxygen and combustible material are normal conditions, the dropped match is the actual cause. The dropped match is considered abnormal, and only voluntary and informal acts of third parties can break the chain of causation.
• In the case of R vs Smith, the defendant, a soldier, stabbed another soldier during a fight. The injured soldier received inadequate medical treatment, which contributed to his death. The defendant was convicted of murder, and the appeal argued that proper medical treatment would have saved the victim. However, it was determined that the stab wound was the operating cause of death, and the conviction was upheld. The court was reluctant to accept the defendant's claim that the victim would have survived with better medical care.

Causa Causes

Causa causes refers to the primary cause or originator of an action. It is the reason behind all the causes. Damages resulting from all the causes are generally referred to as causa causes. To obtain damages, the defendant's illegal act must cause harm, which should be proven by the claimant. There is no need to prove the original cause of harm by the defendant. However, while determining the cause of harm, the court will consider the explanation provided by the defendant for the original cause of the harm.

Minimal Causation

Moti Singh v. the State of UP

• Moti Singh and Jagdamba Prasad, along with five others, were convicted of offences under Section 148, Section 302, read with Section 149, and Section 307.
• They were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The conviction of Moti Singh was based on the dying declaration of Gaya Charan and the statements of prosecution witnesses.
• The High Court relied on Gaya Charan's dying declaration to determine the number of persons involved in the firing.
• The statement of Gaya Charan was deemed inadmissible in evidence.
• The High Court upheld the conviction of the session judge, but the Supreme Court allowed the appeals of Moti Singh and Jagdamba Prasad.
• The court acquitted Moti Singh and Jagdamba Prasad of the offences they were convicted of.
• They were directed to be released if not required to be detained under any process of law.
• The appeals were allowed by the court.

Rewarm v. the State of MP

• The appellant Rewarm challenged his conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code for the murder of his wife, Gyanwati Bai.
• The prosecution alleged that Rewarm and his wife lived with Bhurkin Bai, and he was found near her body with numerous incised wounds.
• Dr. Mahajan conducted the post-mortem and identified multiple wounds, stating that injury no. 5 was sufficient to cause death.
• Due to effective medical treatment, Gyanwati Bai recovered from shock.
• The court relied on the medical evidence regarding the injuries to uphold the conviction.
• The appeal was not allowed, and Rewarm's conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code was confirmed, sentencing him to life imprisonment.

Unexpected Interventions

Harjinder Singh v. Delhi administration

• The case involves a fight between Dalip Kumar and Harjinder Singh near a water tap in front of a tin factory in Zamirwali lane, Delhi.
• Harjinder Singh was seriously injured in the fight and threatened to retaliate against Dalip Kumar.
• Harjinder Singh returned with his brother Amarjit Singh to confront Dalip Kumar.
• The court noted that the High Court did not adequately consider whether the third ingredient of the case was proven.
• The circumstances suggested that the accused did not intend to cause the injury.
• When the appellant struck the deceased with a knife, he likely knew that the deceased was in a bent position.
• The court believed that the appellant intended to cause an injury likely to result in death, which was justified.
• The appeal was granted, and the conviction was changed from Section 302 to Section 304.

Mens Rea

• Mens rea is a legal term used to describe the mental state or intention of a person when committing a crime. It is often referred to as the "guilty mind" and is an essential element in determining criminal liability.
• The principle of mens rea is based on the maxim "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea," which means that an act does not make a person guilty unless their intention was also guilty.
• In English criminal law, there was historically no distinction between crime and tort, and criminal law was based on strict liability. However, with the shift from monetary compensation to bodily punishment, the mental element in crime gained importance.
• For example, if a person steals bread from a shop out of hunger, their motive may be good, but they are still liable for theft because the intention is what matters.

R VS PRINCE

• In the case of R vs Prince, the defendant, Prince, took a girl below the age of 16 from the custody of her father, believing her to be 18 years old based on her appearance. Prince argued that his intention was bona fide and that he was misled by the girl's appearance.
• However, the court ruled against Prince, stating that he could not benefit from the doctrine of mens rea because his actions constituted a mistake of law. Taking a girl below 16 years of age was unlawful regardless of Prince's belief about her age.
• As a result, Prince was found guilty of the offense.

General Principles

• Actus Non-Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea– An Act does not itself make one guilty unless the mind is also guilty This guilty mind is known as Mens Rea. There are two elements of mens rea first one is intended to do Act and the second one is knowledge of the circumstances that make the Act a criminal offence. Mens rea takes on different types in the different surrounding that is what is evil intent for one type of criminal offence may not be so for another kind. For example, in case of murder intent to goes is mens rea then in case of theft intent to steal is mens rea.

Other Forms of Mens Rea

• Intention
• Motive
• Knowledge
• Recklessness
• Negligence
• Mens rea in the Indian Penal Code 1860
• Kartar Singh v. the State of Punjab
• The Supreme Court held that statutory penal provisions must be interpreted with the elements of mens rea unless a statute explicitly or by necessary implication excludes it.

Intention

• Intention refers to the purpose or design behind an action. It reflects the state of mind of the accused at the time of committing an offense and their willingness to bring about the consequences of their unlawful act.
• In the case of Hyam vs DPP, the defendant (D) attempted to frighten Mrs. Booth by placing a burning newspaper in her letterbox. The fire spread, resulting in the deaths of two children. Although D did not intend to kill, she foresaw death or serious bodily injury as a likely outcome. D was found guilty of murder because she had sufficient mens rea. Intention encompasses both specific and generic intentions.
• Section 39 of the IPC defines "voluntarily" as causing an effect by means intended to cause it or by means likely to cause it at the time of employing those means.

Intention and Motive

• Intention refers to the purpose behind an action, while motive is the reason for doing something. Motive can be good or bad, but if the intention is not good, the person is liable for the crime.
• For instance, if a person steals bread from a shop out of hunger, the motive is good, but the person is still guilty of theft. Intention is the key element in determining criminal liability, and it is often contrasted with motive.
• The motive explains why people commit certain crimes in a particular way, regardless of whether their motive is good or bad.

Knowledge as Mens Rea

• Knowledge refers to being aware of the consequences of an action. In Section 307 of the IPC, which deals with attempted murder, the term knowledge is used instead of mens rea. Knowledge and intention are treated similarly in terms of a guilty mind, making knowledge a component of mens rea.
• The Indian Penal Code recognizes mens rea as knowledge, emphasizing its importance in determining criminal liability.
• In the case of Om Prakash vs Punjab, the defendant was liable for murder because he did not provide food to his wife for several weeks, demonstrating intent or knowledge of the food scarcity.

Negligence as Mens Rea

• Negligence as mens rea refers to the failure to exercise due care or caution while performing a lawful act. It involves the duty to take care, and a person is considered negligent if they do not fulfill this duty.
• The concept of reasonable negligence is subjective and depends on the perspective of a prudent person. If an individual's lack of reasonable care causes harm to someone, it is deemed negligent behavior.
• Negligent actions constitute mens rea for criminal liability. For example, if someone fails to take reasonable care and their actions harm another person, it is considered a negligent act.
• Mens rea is a crucial aspect of criminal law, as it involves the mental state of the accused at the time of committing the offense. Different forms of mens rea include intention, motive, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence.

Vicarious Liability

• Vicarious Liability is a legal principle where one person is held responsible for the wrongful actions of another person, based on their relationship.
• Key Relationshipsthat can establish vicarious liability include:
  • Principal and Agent
  • Partners in a Partnership Firm
  • Master and Servant
• Principal's Liability: A principal can be held liable for wrongful acts committed by their agent during the course of employment. The injured party can choose to sue the principal, the agent, or both.

Exceptions to General Rule of Vicarious Liability

• A person who commits a wrongful act through another person (servant/agent) by hiring them is generally not liable if the hired person commits the wrongful act outside the course of employment.

Latin Maxims in Vicarious Liability

• Respondeat superior: This maxim means "Let the master be liable," indicating that a master (employer) is responsible for the actions of their servant (employee).
• Qui facit per alium facit per se: This maxim translates to "He who acts through another acts himself," emphasizing that a master is liable for the work done by their servant.

Conclusion

In criminal law, both actus reus and mens rea are crucial components in establishing an offence. While actus reus refers to the physical act or conduct that constitutes a crime,mens rea pertains to the mental state or intention behind that act. The presence of criminal guilt is vital for the violation of criminal law, and wrongful intention plays a pivotal role in determining culpability. Therefore, it is essential to establish both the wrongful act and the wrongful intention to prove an offence in the realm of criminal justice.