In the course of law, Actus Reus, meaning a ‘guilty or criminal act’, accompanied by Mens Rea, forms the basic essentials of a criminal act. A person found in absence of any one of these elements is not held liable, and the crimeis not considered to have been committed. The quantum of requirement of guilty state of mind varies from one crime to the other, while there are also various exceptions to it, like for example, strict liability is an exception to Mens Rea.
Thus, Mens Rea is the state of mind which is to necessarily cross with the Actus Reus to make a person liable in the court of law, for a criminal offence. There are many instances in the Indian Penal Code 1980, where Mens Rea is denoted by terms like dishonestly, fraudulently, voluntarily, intentionally, knowingly etc. indirectly implying the imperative existence of malice in the mind of the one who commits such an act.
STRICT LIABILITY AS AN EXCEPTION TO MENS REA
The situations that do not require Mens rea to be proved are those having strict liability or absolute liability. These situations are considered to be exceptions to the concept of Mens rea, an indispensable concept in criminal law. Various cases where Mens rea is not required, are as below-
- The two main factors that indicate whether a particular criminal act has strict liability or not, are the language of the particular statute, or the words in which it is termed along with the legislature’s intention behind enacting that statute. If words in the provision expressly mention the need of Mens rea, or if the same is implied, is what needs to be taken care of.
- Quasi criminal acts, including offences against public interest, white collar crimes.
- Offences, in the commission of which, the society is damaged. For eg.- serial muders
- In the cases where the punishment of an offence is in the form of small sum of money and there is no express mention of the mandatory presence of Mens rea. In addition to that, also if it is very difficult to prove the presence of mental element.
- The cases that create Public Nuisance.
- Cases with criminal proceedings, but with the infringement of civil rights. For eg.- trespasser sued for infringing the rights one has on his/her own property.
- Another exception can be when the defense of ignorance of law is contended, which is not a valid defense.
The main purpose on the imposition of strict liability, is not to punish the people, but to make sure certain rules are adhered to, to ensure public welfare and safety. If a person is given a concession, the basic objective of the provision or statute fails.
Broadly speaking, public welfare or socio economic offences are treated as an exception to Mens rea.
Hence, Mens Rea, one of the most important element for the commission of a crime, has strict liability as an exception to it. This is when a person, is held liable for a particular offence, not giving regard to his/her mental state of intention or knowledge or voluntariness. Imposition of strict liability is generally seen to be present where the interest of the public at large is taken into consideration. Any offence that is apprehended to have a negative effect on the society is sought to have a strict or absolute responsibility on the accused person, for his/her deeds.
Strict liability is important to be imposed in today’s society when certain offences can have grave consequences on the public at large, and the need to ensure safety is of utmost importance to the governments of nations. The presence or absence of a guilty mind, in the person who commits a crime, does not matter due to the adverse impact on the society, and the person would be held liable in any circumstance.
By Shalya Agarwal
Law Student
Symbiosis Law College, Noida