DEFINITION OF CRIME AND ELEMENTS OF CRIME: ACTUS AND MENS REA

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 1,971

This article is written by Antara Roy of 4th Semester of LL.M of Kazi Nazrul University, Asansol, West Bengal, an intern under Legal Vidya

Abstract-

The criminal justice system is centered on the complex legal notion of crime. Legal professionals, academics, and society at large must all understand the ingredients of a crime, particularly actus reus and mens rea: Actus reus, from the Latin for “guilty act,” refers to the outward manifestation of criminal conduct. Several components need to be present in order to prove actus reus: Usually, involuntary movements or actions without intent do not qualify as actus reus. Unlawful Act: The deed or omission must be in violation of a specific statute or law. It implies that behavior, such as stealing, violence, or trespassing, must be specifically forbidden by the law. Causation: It is necessary to establish a link between the accused’s actions and any harm or forbidden outcome. It must be shown that the action directly caused the criminal outcome. In essence, a crime is a concept in law that calls for both actus reus and mens rea in order to be proven guilty. These components support a fair and balanced criminal justice system by ensuring that people are held accountable for their conduct while considering their intent and mental state. In order to distinguish criminal behaviour from other behaviours and sustain the concepts of justice in society, it is essential to comprehend these components.

Keywords- Actus Reus, Mens-rea, Guilty Mind, Crime, Injury

Introduction-

A crime is an illegal act that is sanctioned by the government or another legal body. An act that is harmful to the community, society, or state is considered a crime or an offense. Criminal law is any law that deals with a crime. These laws use punishment as a torchbearer. This is done to deter residents from engaging in antisocial and wild behavior or conduct. Additionally, this law guarantees the safety of Indian citizens. The criminal code in India serves as the definition of crime. The State has the burden of proving a crime, while the prosecution bears the burden of proof. The State takes action to protect the crime’s victims, stop the criminal from committing more crimes, and give the victims justice. Since an animal cannot commit a crime, a human must do so to be considered a criminal. In most common law nations, the two essential components of any crime are mens rea and Actus Reus. Mens rea is the legal term for the “guilty mind” or guilty desire to conduct a crime, with the express purpose of causing harm to a person or an animal or disturbing the peace. However, Actus Reus is the “guilty act,” which is required to show that a criminal act was performed. The burden of proof rests squarely on the prosecution to establish the defendant’s guilt.

LAW AND ETHICS-

Law is more concerned with how people relate to one another than with how well each person’s character stands on its own. The study of the highest good, or ethics, focuses on the individual. Law only steps in when morality and ethics fall short. Positive morality deals with the current state of public opinion, whereas ethics deals with the absolute ideal.

What is Crime?

First, we must know the definition of Crime. It accurately and precisely is really challenging. As was already mentioned, it is challenging to give a clear definition of “Crime.” However, a few academics have occasionally defined the term “Crime,” emphasizing one or another aspect of banned behavior. It will be beneficial to review some of the previously provided notable definitions of “Crime” in order to familiarize ourselves with the nature and various features of the term. Let us first look at the two definitions that Sir William Blackstone provided in his venerable commentary on English law, Commentaries on the Laws of England. First, he describes it as “an act committed or omitted in violation of public law prohibiting or directing it.”^[1] The phrase “Public law” has various acknowledged meanings, nevertheless. For instance, Austin believed that “Public law” and “constitutional law” were one and the same. If this definition is accepted, then only political offenses would be considered crimes. This perspective not only limits the notion of crime’s application but also renders it useless. While others view “Public law” as “Positive law” or “Municipal law”—a law created by the government. With this view of “Public law,” Blackstone’s definition of the term becomes excessively broad because it encompasses any legal wrong or violation of (positive) law. Blackstone may have realized that his initial definition of crime was inadequate and changed it to include public rights and obligations. He asserts that criminal activity violates the public obligations owed to the community, taken as a whole.^[2] Again, even if most crimes are moral wrongs, there are numerous situations when the morality test will not hold up under investigation. Treason is the most serious crime under the law, although it has historically been used against great patriots and leaders of their countries, such as George Washington and Mahatma Gandhi. A simple failure to maintain a highway is shocking to no one, but it is a crime; in contrast, many egregiously cruel and dishonest violations of trust are only civil wrongs. Directors of a firm are not criminally liable even if their egregious incompetence causes the company to collapse and many stockholders to become impoverished. Even though a behavior is extremely cruel, it may not violate the law. Furthermore, defining crime based on alleged immorality raises the question of whose morality should serve as the standard for criminalization, to which there is no satisfactory solution. For instance, the paternalist, the legal moralist, and the liberal have all responded differently to the question of de-criminalizing consensual homosexuality. The idea of criminalizing an action only because it is immoral has been hotly debated.^[3] One of the fundamental tenets of compensation in civil lawsuits for losses is restitution in integrum (return to the original position). However, it should be kept in mind that in some civil actions, judges will order wrongdoers to pay exemplary damages in the form of punishment. For instance, unless the woman’s husband files a complaint, no court will take adultery and criminal elopement offenses against sections 497 and 498 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) into consideration. A violation is something that the Code makes punishable, according to Section 40. The instant the state repeals or invalidates an existing offense under the IPC, it is no longer an offense under the law. These definitions of crime make it clear that it is challenging to come up with a specific definition of “crime” that encompasses the wide range of acts and omissions that are criminal in character while simultaneously excluding all those acts and omissions that are not. No matter how immoral, repugnant, or indecent an act or omission may be, it does not constitute a crime unless it is expressly forbidden by penal law. Typically, a crime is a wrong that jeopardizes the safety and welfare of the public, making its abolition desirable to the public. However, it must be emphasized that the concept of “crime” cannot be identified or defined by a simple or definitive checklist of requirements.^[4]

Criminal Law as a Tool for Determining Crime

This law may also be referred to as the penal law. It includes the penalties that must be meted out for various offenses, such as criminal prosecution, charges, and incarceration of Offenders. This law also controls how a person is accused, investigated, and tried. Many regulations are enforced by the prospect of punishment at the hands of the law. The known characteristics of criminal law are listed below to help with understanding the definition of crime.

Distinguished Jurists’ Definition of Crime

Crime is defined by William Blackstone as an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it” in his book Commentaries on the Laws of England.

As per Bentham, “offenses are whatever the legislature has prohibited for good or for bad reasons.” It is clear from the definitions that there is no universally accepted definition of crime. Each jurist has a unique definition of the offense based on their personal beliefs and judgments. All attempts to define crime perfectly have also fallen short due to the variable nature of its content.

The Basic Components of Crime-

A human being
“Mens rea” A person having bad intentions or a guilty mind.
“Actus reus” Any deed that is done or left undone that is prohibited by law and is motivated by evil.
Injury

Act in a Voluntary Way

Crime is a result of our own free will and independent decision-making. Mens rea One of the key ideas in substantive criminal law is the real or the mental component of crime. For breaking the law, a guy would be guilty of a crime. However, the rule is not unbreakable and is constrained by the restrictions listed in the Latin proverb Actus non- facit-reum, nisi mens sit rea. “There can be no crime, large or small, without an evil mind,” says Bishop. “It is therefore a principle of our legal system, as probably it is of every other, that the essence

an offense is the wrongful intent, without which it cannot exist.^[5] In other words, it must be demonstrated that a specific occurrence or state of circumstances that is prohibited by law has occurred in order to hold a person criminally responsible for an act. harmed by his actions, and that such actions were accompanied by a legally binding negative mental attitude.^[6]

A Mental Aspect of Crime

In several areas of criminal law, the accused’s mental condition is important.

Plea for Infancy^[7] Investigations of the accused’s mental state are possible. For instance, a minor under the age of 7 is never criminally liable.^[8] Those between the ages of 7 and 12 are only accountable if they exercise malign judgment.
Plea of Insanity^[9] One can examine the mentally disturbed state of mind, for instance, in the justifications for insanity^[10] and reduced accountability.
The fourth meaning focuses on the specific mental state necessary.^[11] compared to the other components of the crime. Mens area of crime is this.

The Intention of the Crime-

Intention- A person’s intention is their will, which is focused on performing an obvious act. Intention explicitly refers to the accused’s mental state, or what was going through his head now the crime was committed. For instance, it is obvious that B intends to kill A if B cuts off A’s head.
Motive- The person’s ulterior motive is what drives him to perform an action. The word “motive” denotes the reason for doing or not doing something. For instance, if someone kills another man after taking his brand-new iPhone, their goal is to obtain the device.
Knowledge- It is possible to deduce an intention to commit an offense from knowledge. Example: A wants to murder Z. Z suffers from severe asthma, and A is aware that Z needs an inhaler. To murder Z, A hides his inhaler. In this instance, a was aware of Z’s health issues.
Recklessness- is the mental state of a person who anticipates how their action might go but neglects to consider the risk involved.
Negligence: is a failure to perform a responsibility or act prudently. Contrary to torts, carelessness is not regarded as a broad kind of responsibility in the law. The IPC solely determines criminal responsibility in select limited situations.
Actus Reus- The third ingredient, which we have referred to as actus reus or as “physical event” by Russell 1, is crucial in order to establish a crime. What is this actus reus, exactly? It is a tangible outcome of human behaviour. Criminal law prohibits such behavior when it deems it to be sufficiently detrimental, and as a result, it offers a sanction or penalty for its commission.
Injury to Human Being- As we mentioned earlier, the fourth component is harm done to another person or society. This harm to another person’s body, mind, reputation, or property should not be committed unlawfully.

THE ESSENCE OF THE MENS-REA CONCEPT ( The Guilty Mind)

The ability of the accused to control his behavior is the cornerstone of mens rea. He has the choice of engaging in behaviours that violate the law. Chief Judge, Biggs, Mens Rea, or the guilty mind, is a concept based on the idea that a person could control their behaviour and make decisions of behaviour. Although not entirely uncontested it is vital to have theologians, philosophers, and scientists uphold and administer social controls. Basically, these obligations are designed to work with the capacity of human decision-making and behavior management to prevent and deter socially inappropriate behaviours. whenever a possessor. Despite having the ability to control and choose, it violates a responsibility of this nature, and he is subject to the penalties of felony law.^[12] Mens rea is crucial in determining whether an act is criminally responsible. Mens rea shows that the accused had a definite intention to commit the offense for which he is being prosecuted. The accused must be shown to have committed the offense with full knowledge of what they were doing and with malice toward the victim in mind. Mens rea, which requires the defendant to have been aware of the consequences of their conduct for civil liability to exist, is also employed in some civil lawsuits, although typically, the Actus Reus takes precedence in cases of civil liability. However, if an otherwise healthy individual has a heart attack and unintentionally hurts someone else while driving, he is not responsible and is not guilty of the crime.^[13]

Mens Rea Ingredients under the Indian Penal Code-

Awareness- Key to Mens Rea is the accused’s intent or knowledge to commit an illegal act. This suggests that the behaviour had to have been consciously chosen, even when the person knew it was against the law and may have unfavourable effects. For Example- A person enters a public event with a concealed firearm while aware that doing so is prohibited. Later, at the party, the person uses the weapon to threaten someone. In this instance, the accused proved Mens Rea by intending to possess the firearm and being aware that doing so was illegal.

Imprudence- Being reckless is described as purposefully taking a risk despite knowing that it could have negative consequences or legal ramifications. Mens Rea largely rests on the defendant’s disregard for potential harm. Given an example- Suppose a person, aware of the possibility of accidents and injury, drives at high speeds through a crowded market. Despite the evident risk, the person keeps driving irresponsibly, putting other people in peril.

Criminal Awareness- When the accused is aware of the illegal nature of their actions, even if they did not intend to cause harm, criminal awareness mens rea can also be established. For such an Example Unknowingly, a person sells fake goods on the street while thinking they are real. The person is conscious that it is illegal to sell fake goods, nevertheless. Even if the perpetrator had no intention of hurting anyone, Mens Rea is established by their knowledge of the offense.

Negligence as the Mens rea- Negligence is the third type of mens rea. It is our responsibility to address negligence. To put it another way, someone is negligent if they act carelessly while carrying out a legal act. There is no definition of “reasonable negligence” anywhere. Whoever can fail to exercise due care and whose actions result in injury to another person are referred to as negligent acts by others, and this negligent act is taken into consideration as a mens rea for criminal accountability of a person.

Motive- Although motive is not always required to prove Mens Rea, it can help shed light on the accused’s thoughts and intentions prior to the crime. In order to escape their bad financial situation, a person who is in desperate need of money robs a bank. Although the motive is not a factor in determining guilt, it can help put the accused’s plan to commit the crime into perspective.

Companion Liability- According to the vicarious liability principle, when one person is held accountable for the wrongdoings of another, that first person is said to be vicariously liable for the second person’s misdeeds. In this situation, their bond is essential.There must be some sort of connection between A and B for A to be held accountable for B’s actions.

The connection may take the following forms:-

Principal and agent,
A partnership’s firm’s partner.
Master and servant
When an agent violates company policy while on the job, the principal is held accountable. The plaintiff has the option of suing either the principal, the agent, or both.

A General rule of vicarious liability exception- A person who commits any unlawful act through a third party—a servant or agent—by hiring that third party, and the hired party commits the unlawful act while on the job. The two Latin maxims from which vicarious liability derives are as follows:- Tell your superior to take responsibility. Qui facit per alium facit per se: The master is responsible for his servant’s labor.

Mens Rea’s relevance Indian Criminal Law

Mens Rea has virtually little practical use in Indian criminal law. It has clear justifications. One of the many important factors is that India’s whole criminal code, in which all offenses are precisely stated, has been codified. According to numerous definitions in the penal code, the offense must have been committed “voluntarily,” “dishonestly,” “knowingly,” “fraudulently,” etc. Therefore, the guilty thinking could be dishonest, fraudulent, or careless. Additionally, there are some offenses under the Indian Penal Code that are described without any for instance, crimes against the state, forging coinage, etc., all require mens-rea or purpose. Mens-rea works as a requirement of criminal culpability to such an extent that it is codified in the penal code’s General Exceptions (Sections 76 to 106) section. In these circumstances, there is no liability in India.^[14]

Degree of Mens Rea and Crime Punishment: A Relationship

Mens rea is the legal term for a guilty state of mind that includes knowledge of the consequences as well as intention or purpose. Mens rea refers to the degree of mental involvement in the crime and is a direct indicator of the degree of accountability. The severity of the punishment increases with the degree of mens rea in the crime. For instance, intentionally killing a person, which would be considered murder, would carry the harshest penalty under the law due to the highest degree of mens rea involved; however, if someone is accidentally hit and dies, the person would not be held responsible for any crime.

Mens rea as a statutory offence for India

In India, “mens rea” is not a legislative offense; rather, it is a cornerstone of the country’s criminal justice system. It describes the person’s thoughts, plans, or knowledge at the time of the act. Mens rea, albeit not a crime in and of itself, is a crucial component in determining guilt in Indian criminal law. The Indian Penal Code and other statutes include distinct levels of mens rea that range from purposeful conduct to negligence for different offenses. Mens rea’s existence or absence can decide a person’s guilt or innocence and the harshness of their punishment. In order to interpret and apply mens rea in the context of certain criminal charges, the Indian legal system relies on established legal principles and judicial rulings, assuring a fair and reasonable process.

Analysis- It is true that, unlike civil culpability, the stigma of a criminal record can act as a deterrent. Criminal law’s stigmatizing power and, by extension, its deterrent power are both declining as it is applied to punish blameless perpetrators under strict responsibility. When the system searches, If condemnation is not warranted, it gradually lessens its ability to stigmatize despite merited situations. any benefit obtained from use of criminal law to punish blatant transgressions is acquired at a serious expense. This outcome is especially troubling because social scientists suggest that the moral legitimacy of criminal law is a major factor. In its capacity to secure adherence. The judiciary’s acceptance of the legislature is known as strict liability supports the conviction of those without a “guilty mind” This endorsement occurs when there is no indication of mens rea for at least one component of the actor. Perhaps a rigid method should only be used in small regulatory violations, but this has not always held true.^[15]

Actus Reus is essential to Mens Rea- A criminal offense is frequently committed under the law when there is both misconduct and malice aforethought, which is the guilty mind necessary for every criminal offense. Every offense must have a transgression established. If the wrongdoing was not done, it would not be enough that the crime was committed with malice aforethought.

Case Law-

In R vs. Quick,^{^[16]} The diabetic defendant was accused of attacking his victim. The defendant was attacked while suffering from hypoglycemia, or low blood sugar brought on by a lack of insulin. According to the court, automatism should be used as the basis for the defendant’s acquittal. He had fallen asleep as a result of taking insulin, among other outside influences.
In Hill vs. Baxter,^{^[17]} According to the Court of Appeal, if D were to be attacked by a swarm of killer bees while operating a vehicle and the bees caused D to lose control of the vehicle and strike a zebra crossing the road, D would not be held responsible because the bees’ acts were not voluntary.
In Thabo Meli vs. R,^{^[18]} The defendants beat their victim over the head to murder him, after which they dumped what they believed to be the victim’s body over a cliff. The victim did pass away, but it was due to the weather and exposure rather than the beating. There was a claim that the defendants lacked mens rea at the time of the offense.

Recent examples in the Indian Penal Code 1860-

In State vs. Hira Nand and others^{^[19]}According to the ruling in this case, the accused must have both an actus reus—an act performed in accordance with such mens rea—and a mental element, or mens rea, which might be active or passive. The court must conclude that the accused had the necessary knowledge or intention in order to find him or her guilty under Section 308 of the IPC.
In Moti Singh vs. State of Utter Pradesh,^{^[20]} The Supreme Court ruled in this case that Gayan Charan’s death, which occurred three weeks after the incident, could not be attributed to the injuries he sustained simply because his two bullet wounds were life-threatening. The court said that in order to establish that Gayan Charan was murdered, it would be essential to show that his injuries caused him to pass away.
Actus Reus Objective-

The major goals of criminal law are to uphold the rule of law, preserve social order, and safeguard individual freedom and life. Consider the idea that a crime and a tort are distinct from one another. William sees that there is something about a crime that distinguishes it from a tort, and this is the commonsense approach to crime.

Motives for Criminal behaviours- The primary drivers of criminal behaviours are greed, rage, fury, jealousy, retaliation, and pride.

Beginning- Four origin theories are presented in order to comprehend the beginnings of the legal code. These theories include the conceptions of collective conflict, moral wrong, social wrong, and civil wrong.

According to the civil wrong idea, torts are where criminal law got its start. This idea holds that after the wronged parties initially demanded compensation for their injuries, some of the wrongs were eventually determined to be deterrents to society.
According to the social wrong hypothesis, the development of criminal law was a product of an integrated society on a national scale. Therefore, laws are created by society to prevent wrongdoing from happening again. This argument applies to serious offenses like murder, dacoity, etc. but it does not explain how the legal system evolved through time.
According to the moral wrong theory, morality, traditions, and other values have been crystallized into criminal law. Customs have an ethical underpinning that has persisted for long stretches of time, and when they are broken, society reacts negatively. Such acts are prohibited by penal laws and punishments. Although this theory was successful in explaining traditional crimes against people and property, it could not adequately explain many economic crimes or other social crimes like avoidance.
The Theory of group conflict, which argued that conflict between competing groups was the origin of criminal law. This hypothesis did not account for crimes committed against the state or the general public.

THE ESSENCE OF THE ACTUS REUS (THE GUILTY ACT)

The physical component of a crime is called Actus Reus. In civil cases, the plaintiff or victim must have suffered harm as a result of the accused’s actions or inactions. There can be no crime and no cause of action for damages without a guilty act. However, an act by itself does not constitute a crime; rather, the crime is made up of the act itself and the person’s intention, if the act is unlawful. When determining guilt or demonstrating a reasonable doubt about the defendant’s intentions, the facts of the case are sometimes also considered. (For instance, bringing a knife into someone’s home with the intent to conduct an act committing a crime of murder, or accidentally running over a pedestrian while driving at night in the fog.)^[21] Actus Reus can also refer to the failure to perform an act when the accused knows he is required to do so by duty or law (for instance, when a mother purposefully fails to feed her female child, which results in the infant’s death). If the mother’s purpose to kill her child can be demonstrated in court, she can be prosecuted for murder in addition to causing death by negligence.

Motives for criminal behaviours- The primary drivers of criminal behaviours are greed, rage, fury, jealousy, retaliation, and pride.

Objective-

Beginning

Four origin theories are presented in order to comprehend the beginnings of the legal code. These theories include the conceptions of collective conflict, moral wrong, social wrong, and civil wrong. According to the Indian Penal Code, Mens Rea, also referred to as the “guilty mind,” is a crucial aspect of criminal liability. It focuses on the accused’s motivation or state of mind at the time of the offense.

Place The act us reus is in respect of place for the crimes of criminal trespass, housebreaking, or their enhanced versions (sections 441-462, IPC).

Time The actus reus is regarding both place and time in the offenses of lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit an offense or after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, etc. (sec. 456-458, IPC).

Person The act us reus is in respect of the person in offenses including kidnapping and abduction, obtaining of a juvenile girl, etc. (sections 359-374, IPC).

The Victim’s Mental State The actus reus refers to the victim’s state of mind when crimes against religion (sec. 295-298, IPC) or rape are committed with the victim’s agreement after inducing fear of harm or death (sec. 375, third, IPC), respectively, are involved.

Possession In some crimes, the Actus Reus is possession of stolen property (IPC sections 410–412). Section 399 of the IPC makes it illegal to plan to commit a dacoity; as a result, planning is the actus reus.

Actus Reus types-

CRIME OF ACTION – The wrongdoing in an action crime is merely an act, and the outcome is irrelevant. When someone issues a press release while under oath while not believing it to be accurate, for instance, they have committed perjury. It matters less whether that statement affects the trial than whether perjury has been committed.

CRIME EXAMPLES – Consequence Manslaughter, murder, injury, etc. are only a few examples of consequence crimes. Numerous scholars contend that in cases of this kind of crime, it is not supported by actions but rather by the crimes’ outcomes.

PERFORM CRIMES – At times, it may seem cumbersome and pointless to categorize crimes into “conduct crimes” and “result crimes.” However, it is always important to recognize the fundamental components of an offense, and using this classification occasionally brings up significant differences across offenses.

Actus reus versus Mens rea

Mens rea and actus reus differ little from one another because they are both necessary to prove a crime. Mens rea is a mental aspect while actus reus is a physical element; this is the only distinction between the two. Mens rea arises before actus reus in most criminal offenses because the offender is required to have knowledge or an intention regarding the consequences of his actions.

Complexities and Exceptions

The Mens Rea and Actus Reus concepts offer a solid foundation for evaluating criminal liability, but the criminal law system is not without exceptions and complexity. These nuances are essential for developing a reasonable and equitable legal system that can handle a variety of scenarios.

Strict Liability^{^[22]}: In some cases, the need to establish Mens Rea is disregarded in favour of strict liability. This shows that the act alone can establish criminal liability independent of the accused’s intention or awareness. This is especially typical when there are allegations of public protection or welfare. For instance, when a minor is involved in a statutory rape, the age of consent supersedes the accused’s intent. It is also against the law to sell cigarettes or alcohol to children, whether the seller knew the customer was underage or not.

Legal Ignorance vs. Factual Ignorance^{^[23]}:- The Latin phrase “Ignorantia juris non excusat” captures the idea that legal ignorance is not an acceptable defence. In other words, it is not always accepted as a defense to say you were unaware of a prohibited action. This idea ensures that people are responsible for understanding the laws that govern their behaviour. But “ignorantia facti excusat” recognizes that factual errors, not legal faults, might provide a valid justification. Example: Someone unintentionally enters a secure government facility thinking it is a public area. They may not be held legally responsible for the inaccuracy because they were unaware that the location was restricted because the error was related to information.

Mental State Complexity^{^[24]}:– Because of the wide variety of human intentions, it may be challenging to accurately define them. It might be challenging to distinguish between several mental states, such as intention, carelessness, and negligence. Consider starting a controlled fire in a public space for agricultural purposes but failing to control it, allowing it to spread and damage surrounding property.

The distinction between voluntary and involuntary^{^[25]} acts is important in Actus Reus because a person’s deliberate engagement in an activity is a key element. It may occasionally be challenging to distinguish between voluntary and involuntary behaviors, though. Consider the scenario where a motorist strikes a pedestrian as a result of an involuntary muscle spasm. It is unclear if the muscular spasms fall under Actus Reus because they are an involuntary activity.

Conclusion

The exceptions and complexities of the legal system ensure a nuanced and adaptable approach to justice, even though Mens Rea and Actus Reus provide a vital foundation for evaluating criminal responsibility. A legal system with a broad variety of protections is made possible by the imposition of severe responsibility, the concept of legal ignorance, the distinction between various mental states, and the evaluation of voluntary and involuntary acts.

Legal professionals who want to make sure that justice is carried out fairly while taking into consideration the variety of human acts, intents, and outcomes must comprehend these exceptions and complexity. These ideas’ consistency and complexity reflect the Indian Penal Code’s constantly evolving approach to criminal law.

References-

Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol 4, 17th edn, 1830, p 5.
HMSO, ‘Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution’, Cmnd 247, 1957, Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals, Oxford, 1965, and HLA Hart, Law, Liberty and Morality, Oxford, 1968. Also see, KI Vibhuti, ‘Consensual Homosexuality and the Indian Penal Code: Some Reflections on the Interplay of Law and Morality,’ vol 51 Jr of the Indian Law Institute, 2009, p 3.
RA Duff, Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in Criminal Law, 2007, p 139
Bishop, Criminal Law, 287 (9th ed. 1930).
R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 1012 2003 AIR SCW 6646 (2003)9 SCC
700; K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law – Cases and Material, 3rd ed., p. 23; Smith & Hogan, Criminal Law,
6th ed., p. 31 ; Salmond, Jurisprudence (3rd ed. 1910) 127.
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2005 SC 2731
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 82,
TN. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 3828; 2001 AIR SCW 4271 ;
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 84,
J. F. Stephen, ‘‘History of Criminal Law of England,” Vol. II, 1883, p. 94-95
See the twenty-ninth report of the Law Commission of India, February 1966, pp.27-28
https://blog.ipleaders.in/mens-rea-actus-reus-essentials-crime
https://ccsuniversity.ac.in/bridge
Duncan Bloy, Criminal Law, Lecture Notes p. 43.
R v Quick [1973] QB 910
Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 QB 277
Thabo Meli v R [1954] 1 W.L.R. 228 (P.C.)
State V Hira Nand and others AIR 2020 SC 22776
Moti Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2019 SC 1198
https://blog.ipleaders.in/mens-rea-actus-reus-essentials-crime
https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-ug/legal-reasoning-questions-for-clat-ug
https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-ug/legal-reasoning-questions-for-clat-ug/
https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-ug/legal-reasoning-questions-for-clat-ug/
https://lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-ug/legal-reasoning-questions-for-clat-ug/

[1] Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol 4, 17th edn, 1830, p 5.

[2] Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol 4, 17th edn, 1830, p 5.

[3] HMSO, ‘Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution’, Cmnd 247, 1957, Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals, Oxford, 1965, and HLA Hart, Law, Liberty and Morality, Oxford, 1968. Also see, KI Vibhuti, ‘Consensual Homosexuality and the Indian Penal Code: Some Reflections on the Interplay of Law and Morality,’ vol 51 Jr of the Indian Law Institute, 2009, p 3.

[4] RA Duff, Answering for Crime: Responsibility and Liability in Criminal Law, 2007, p 139

[5] Bishop, Criminal Law, 287 (9th ed. 1930).

[6] R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala, AIR 2004 SC 1012 2003 AIR SCW 6646 (2003)9 SCC

700; K.D. Gaur, Criminal Law – Cases and Material, 3rd ed., p. 23; Smith & Hogan, Criminal Law,

6th ed., p. 31 ; Salmond, Jurisprudence (3rd ed. 1910) 127.

[7] Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2005 SC 2731

[8] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 82,

[9] TN. Lakshmaiah v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2001 SC 3828; 2001 AIR SCW 4271 ;

[10] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 84,

[11] J. F. Stephen, ‘‘History of Criminal Law of England,” Vol. II, 1883, p. 94-95

[12] See the twenty-ninth report of the Law Commission of India, February 1966, pp.27-28

[13] https://blog.ipleaders.in/mens-rea-actus-reus-essentials-crime/