1.1.

Introduction to Criminal Law:

Criminal law is a body of rules and statutes that defines conduct prohibited by the state because
it threatens and harms public safety and welfare and that establishes punishment to be imposed
for the commission of such acts. Criminal law differs from civil law, whose emphasis is more on
dispute resolution than in punishment. The term criminal law generally refers to substantive
criminal laws. Substantive criminal laws define crimes and prescribe punishments. In contrast,
Criminal Procedure describes the process through which the criminal laws are enforced. Personal
safety, particularly security of life, liberty and property, is of utmost importance to any
individual. Maintenance of peace and order is absolutely essential in any society for human
beings to live peacefully and without fear of injury to their lives and property. This is possible
only in states where the penal law is effective and strong enough to deal with the violators of
law. Any state, whatever be its ideology of form of government, in order to be designated as a
state, should certainly have an efficient system of penal laws in order to discharge its primary
function of keeping peace in the land by maintaining law and order. The instrument by which
this paramount duty of the government is maintained, is undoubtedly the penal law of the land.
Thus, the prime object of criminal law is the protection of the pubic by the maintenance of law
and order. Prof. Wechsler has rightly said thus, “Whatever views are held about the penal law, no
one will question its importance in the society. This is the law on which men place their ultimate
reliance for protection against all the deepest injuries that human conduct can inflict on
individuals and institutions. By the same token, penal law governs the strongest force that we
permit official agencies to bring to bear on individuals. Its promise as an instrument of safety is
matched only by its power to destroy. If penal law is weak or ineffective, basic human interests
are in jeopardy”. Every person in a society is interested in the maintenance of law and order, and
is anxious to have security of life and property. Criminal law has been mainly concerned with the
protection of the elementary social interest in the integrity of life, liberty and property. Criminal
offences dealing with the protection of life and liberty have essentially remained unchanged
throughout the ages all over the world. Viewed in this light, it will be difficult to deny the great
importance of this branch of law for the security of life, property and maintenance of law and
order in the state. People in a state can afford to be without a highly developed system of
 constitutional law, or property law, but they could ill afford to remain even a day without the
system of penal law.

1.2. Crime : Nature and Concept of Crime

Of all the branches of law, the branch that closely touches and concerns a man in his day-to-day
life is criminal law. Many attempts have been made to define crime, but they all fail to identify
what kind of act or omission amounts to a crime. Perhaps, this is because of the changing notions
about crime from time to time and place to place. The very definition and concept of crime varies
not only according to the values of a particular group and society, its ideals, faith, religious
attitudes, customs, traditions, and taboos, but also according to the form of the government,
political and economic structure of the society and a number of other factors. For instance, what
is an offence against property in a capitalist culture may be a lawful way of living in a socialist
society. What is permissible in a free and an affluent society may be a pernicious vice in a
conservative set up. 1 An act, which is a crime today, may not be a crime tomorrow, if the
legislature so decides. For instance, polygamy 2 , dowry 3 , untouchability4 are now crimes that
were not so a few years ago.
Criminal law is narrower than morality. In no age or nation, has the attempt been made to treat
every moral defect as a crime. The idea of crime involves the idea of some definite, gross,
undeniable injury to someone, where some definite overt act is necessary. No one is punished
for ingratitude, hard-heartedness, absence of natural affection, habitual idleness, avarice,
sensuality and pride. Sinful thoughts and dispositions of mind might be the subject of confession
and of penance, but not of criminal proceedings. Criminal law then, must be confined within
narrow limits, and can be applied only to definite overt acts of omissions definite evils, either on
specific persons or on the community at large. It is within these limits only, that there can be
any relation at all between criminal law and morality.
Law is concerned with relationships between individuals, rather than with the individual
excellence of their characters. Ethics is a study of the supreme good, which concentrates on an
individual. Law comes in only when ethics and morality fail. Ethics deal with absolute ideal,

1
V.R. Krishna Iyer, Perspectives in Criminology, Law and Social change (Allied publishers, 1980) , pp. 7-8
2
Hindu Marriage Act, 1995, secs. 5,17
3
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, secs. 3 and 4
4
Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, sec. 3
 whereas positive morality deals with current public opinion. The distinction between law and
morality can be understood clearly by the following examples. A’s neighbour is dying of
starvation. A’s granary is full. There is no law that requires A to help him; B is standing on the
bank of a tank. A woman is filling her pitcher. All of a sudden she gets an epileptic fit. B may,
with a clean legal conscience, allow her to die.
1.3. Definitions of Crime :
It is very difficult to give a correct and precise definition of crime. Glanwille Williams rights
points out that “the definition of crime is one of the thorny intellectual problems of law. Over
the time, many jurists have come up in an attempt to define what ‘crime’ is according to them,
but settling at a precise definition hasn’t yet been done. Some definitions are given as under-
(i) Blackstone – Blackstone defined crime defined crime as an act committed or omitted in
violation of a public law either forbidding or commanding it. A crime is a violation of the
public rights and duties due to the whole community considered as a community.
(ii) Stephen – Stephen observed a crime is a violation of a right considered in reference to
the evil tendency of such violation as regards the community at large.
(iii) Austin – According to Austin, crime is any act or omission which the law punishes. A
wrong which is pursued at the discretion of the injured party and his representatives is
acivil injury: a wrong which is pursued by the sovereign or his subordinates is a crime.
(iv) Prof. S. W. Keeton – According to Prof. Keeton, “A crime today would seem to be any
undesirable act, which the state finds most convenient to correct by the institution of
proceedings for the infliction of a penalty, instead of leaving the remedy to the direction
of some injured person”.
(v) Oxford Dictionary –Oxford Dictionary defines crime as an act punishable by law as
forbidden by statute or injurious to the public welfare.

Some jurists define crime as those legal wrongs which violently offend our moral feelings.Some
jurists define crime according to the interference by the state in such acts. In civil cases the state
does not interfere until actual wrong has been committed, and even then itdoes not interpose
unless proceedings are initiated by the person actually affected by it. Incriminal matters the state
maintains an elaborate police staff to prevent offences and if one iscommitted an action may be
instituted by the state without the cooperation of the partyinjured.
Thus we see that an attempt to define the word ‘crime’ has been made by profound jurists and
thinkers over the time but because of its ever-changing nature from time to time, society to
society, circumstances to circumstances and cases to case, it is a difficult task to give a
definition of ‘crime’ which would be precise and applicable in every case.
 2. ELEMENTS OF CRIME:

2.1. Brief Overview :

The fundamental principle of criminal liability is that there must be a wrongful act,
actusreus5,combined with a wrongful intention, mensrea. This principle is embodied in the
maxim, actus non facitreum, nisi mens sit rea, meaning, ‘an act does not make one guilty
unless the mind is also blameworthy’. A mere criminal intention not followed by a prohibited
act does not constitute a crime. Similarly, mere actusreus ceases to be a crime as it lacks
mensrea. Not act is per se criminal; it becomes criminal only when the actor does it with
guilty mind. No external conduct, howsoever serious in its consequences, is generally
punished unless the prohibited consequence is produced by some wrongful intent, fault or
mensrea6. In juristic concept, actusreus represents the physical aspect of crime and mensrea,
its mental aspect, which must be criminal and cooperate with the former. Apart from these
two elements that go to make up a crime, there are two more indispensable elements, namely,
first, “ahuman being under a legal obligation to act in a particular way and a fit subject for
theinfliction of appropriate punishment,” and secondly, “an injury to another human being or
tothe society at large.” Thus the four elements that go to constitute a crime are as follows:
first,a human being under a legal obligation to act in a particular way and a fit subject for
theinfliction of appropriate punishment: secondly, an evil intent or mensrea on the part of
suchhuman being; thirdly, actusreus, i.e., act committed or omitted in furtherance of such
anintent; and fourthly, an injury to another human being or to society at large by such an act.

2.2. Human being as an Element of Crime :

The first element requires that the wrongful act must be committed by a human being. In
ancient times, when criminal law was largely dominated by the idea of retribution,
punishments were inflicted on animals also for the injury caused by them, for example, a pig
was burnt in Paris for having devoured a child, a horse was killed for having kicked a man.
But now, if an animal causes an injury we hold not the animal liable but its owner liable for
such injury. So the first element of crime is a human being who- must be under the legal

5
Coined by Prof. Kenny, 1st edition, Outlines of Criminal Law,1902
6
Mahadeo Prasad v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1954 SC 724
 obligation to act in a particular manner and should be a fit subject for awarding appropriate
punishment.
Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code provides that word ‘person’ includes a company or
association or body of persons whether incorporated or not. The word ‘person’ includes
artificial or juridical persons.
The act should have been done by a human being before it can constitute a crime punishable
at law. The human being must be “under a legal obligation to act, and capable of being
punished.”
In case, the crime is committed by an animal, its owner is subject to Civil/Tortious liability.

2.3. Actus Reus as an Element of Crime :

Actus Reus: To constitute a crime the third element, which we have called actusreus orwhich
Russell1 has termed as “physical event”, is necessary. Actusreusis a physical result of human
conduct. When criminal policy regards such a conduct assufficiently harmful it is prohibited
and the criminal policy provides a sanction or penalty forits commission. The actusreus may
be defined in the words of Kenny to be “such result ofhuman conduct as the law seeks to
prevent.”3 Such human conduct may consist of acts ofcommission as well as acts of
omission. Section 32 of our Penal Code lays down: “Wordswhich refer to acts done extend
also to illegal omissions.”
It is, of course, necessary that the act done or omitted to be done must be an act forbidden or
commanded by some statute law, otherwise, it may not constitute a crime. Suppose,
anexecutioner hangs a condemned prisoner with the intention of hanging him, here all the
threeelements obviously are present, yet he would not be committing a crime because he is
actingin accordance with a law enjoining him to act. So also if a surgeon in the course of
anoperation, which he knew to be dangerous, with the best of his skill and care performs it
andyet the death of the patient is caused, he would not be guilty of committing a crime
becausehe had no mensrea to commit it.As regards acts of omission which make a man
criminally responsible, the rule is that noone would be held liable for the lawful
consequences of his omission unless it is proved thathe was under a legal obligation to act. In
other words, some duty should have been imposedupon him by law, which he has omitted to
discharge. Under the Penal Code, Section 43 laysdown that the word “illegal” is applicable to
everything which is an offence or which isprohibited by law, or which furnishes a ground for
a civil action; and a person is said to be“legally bound to do whatever it is illegal in him to
omit.” Therefore, an illegal omissionwould apply to omissions of everything which he is
legally bound to do. These indicateproblems of actusreus we have discussed in detail
elsewhere. However, the two elementsactusreus and mensrea are distinct elements of a crime.
They must always be distinguishedand must be present in order that a crime may be
constituted. The mental element or mensreain modern times means that the person’s conduct
must be voluntary and it must also be actuated by a guilty mind, while actusreus denotes the
physical result of the conduct, namely, it should be a violation of some law, statutory or
otherwise, prohibiting or commanding the conduct.
Section 39, Voluntarily – A person is said to cause an effect ‘voluntarily’ when he causes it
by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing
those means , he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it. Illustration – A sets
fire, by night, to an inhabited house in a large town, for the purpose of facilitating a
robbery and thus causes the death of a person. Here, A may not have intended to cause
death, and may even be sorry that death has been caused by his act, yet, if he knew that he
was likely to cause death, he has caused death voluntarily.

Concomitant Circumstances –
 Act to be prohibited by law – In order to create criminal liability, it is not sufficient
that there is mensrea and an act, the actus must be reus. However harmful or
painful an event may be it is not actusreus unless criminal law forbids it. In other
words, the act must be prohibited or commanded by law.
 Act should result in harm – However, it is not all crimes which require the act
should result in some harm. In homicide, the required result is a pre-requisite in
order to constitute an offence. Offences like treason, forgery, perjury and inchoate
or incomplete crimes are per se offences, irrespective of whether they actually
result in harm or not.
 Act to be Direct cause of harm – Where the causing of harm is a requisite of an
offence, then such harm should have a casual effect to the act. In other words, the
harm caused must be a direct result of the act. It must be cause causans, the
 immediate cause, and it is not enough that it may be causa sine qua non, the
proximate cause.

According to Glanville Williams, “When we use the technical term actusreus, we include
all the external circumstances and consequences specified in the rule of law as constituting
the forbidden situation. Reus must be taken as indicating the situation specified in
theactusreus as on that, given any necessary mental element, is forbidden by law”.7

Actusreus includes negative as well as positive elements. The requirements of actusreus

varies depending upon the definition of the crime. Actusreus may be with reference to
place, fact, time, person, consent, the state of mind of the victim, possession or even mere
preparation.

Principle of Ordinary Hazard – According to this principle, the attacker or the wrongdoer
would be liable for anything which happens to the victim, only if the consequence was
directly caused by the act of the attacker. Example – if the victim of an attack dies in a
traffic accident, when he is being conveyed by an ambulance to the hospital, or dies as a
result of a fever which is spread in the hospital, the attacker is not guilty of it, because the
effect of the attack was merely to place the victim in a geographical position, where
another agency produced his death. Another example is where the victim died of hospital
fever, but a contributory factor was the weakness caused by his injuries, so that he would
not have died if it had not been for his weakness. Probably, the attacker, may then be
liable the death caused, a criminal homicide.

Principle of Reasonable Foresight – this principle is built into the IPC in the thirdly and
fourthly of Sec. 300. As per thirdly, a person who causes such bodily injury as is sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, is guilty of murder. Fourthy of Sec. 300,
IPC, states that if a man does an act which is imminently dangerous that in all probability
it must cause death (and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk), and
if death is caused, then he is guilty of murder.

7
Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part, second edn., Stevens and Sons, 1961, p18
 Unexpected Interventions – Unexpected interventions, or twists in the acts, which cause
the result, can create complications while fixing causation. But, it may have effect on the
degree or gravity of culpability, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case.

 Intervention of an innocent person –A person will be held fully responsible if he

had made use of an innocent agent to commit a crime.
 Intervention of another person – In cases, where another person has intervened
and the latter’s action was the immediate and direct cause of the crime, the
original wrongdoer whose act had merely given rise to the occasion of the act of
the criminal, will be absolved from liability.

2.4. Mens Rea as an Element of Crime :

One of the main characteristic of our legal system is that the individual's liability to
punishment for crimes depends, among other things, on certain mental conditions. The
liability of conviction of an individual depends not only on his having done some outward
acts which the law forbids, but on his having done them in a certain frame of mind or with
a certain will. The third element, which is an important essential of a crime, is mensrea or
guilty mind. In the entire field of criminal law there is no important doctrine than that of
mensrea. The fundamental principle of Indian Criminal jurisprudence, to use a maxim
which hasbeen familiar to lawyers following the common law for several centuries, is
“actus non facitreum nisi mens sit rea”. Mensrea is the state of mind indicating culpability,
which is requiredby statute as an element of a crime. It is commonly taken to mean some
blameworthy mentalcondition, whether constituted by intention or knowledge or
otherwise, the absence of whichon any particular occasion negatives the intention of a
crime. The term ‘mensrea’ has beengiven to volition, which is the motive force behind the
criminal act.There can be no crime of any nature without mensrea or an evil mind. Every
crime requires a mental element and that is considered as the fundamental principle of
criminal liability. The basic requirement of the principle mensrea is that the accused must
have been aware of those elements in his act which make the crime with which he is
charged.
 Intention -To intend is to have in mind a fixed purpose to reach a desired objective; it is
used to denote the state of mind of a man who not only foresees but also desires the
possible consequences of his conduct. The idea foresees but also desires the possible
consequences of his conduct. The idea of ‘intention’ in law is not always expressed by the
words ‘intention’, ‘intentionally’ or ‘with intent to’. It is expressed also by words such as
‘voluntarily’, ‘wilfully’ or ‘deliberately’ etc. Section 298 IPC makes the uttering of words
or making gestures with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings punishable under
the Act. ON a plain reading of the section, the words ‘deliberate’ and ‘intent’ seem
synonymous. An act is intentional if, and in so far as it exists in idea before it exists in fact,
the idea realizing itself in the fact because of the desire by which it is accompanied.
Intention does not mean ultimate aim and object. Nor is it a synonym for motive.

 Intention and motive – Intention and motive are often confused as being one and
the same. The two, however, are distinct and have to be distinguished. The mental
element of a crime ordinarily involves no reference to motive. A bad motive cannot
be a reason for convicting a person. Similarly, a good motive cannot be an excuse
for acquitting him. Austin defined motive as ‘the spring of action’. In criminal law,
motive may be defined as that which leads or tempts the mind to indulge in a
criminal act or as the moving power which impels to act for a definite result.8
 Intention and Consequence - The intention to commit an act must be differentiated
from the consequences of an act. In Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of
Maharashtra,9 the court emphasized that for an offence under TADA, an act must
be committed with the intention and motive to create terror as contemplated under
the Act. Where the causing of the terror is only the consequence of the criminal act,
but was not the intention, an accused cannot be convicted for an offence under
TADA.
 Intention and Knowledge - The terms ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’ which denote
mensreaappear in Sections 299 and 300, having different consequences. Intention
and knowledgeare used as alternate ingredients to constitute the offence of culpable
homicide. However,intention and knowledge are two different things. Intention is

8
State of West Bengal v. Mohammed Khalid, AIR 1995 SC 785
9
AIR 1994 SC 2623
 the desire to achieve a certainpurpose while knowledge is awareness on the part of
the person concerned of theconsequence of his act of omission or commission,
indicating his state of mind. Thedemarcating line between knowledge and intention
is no doubt thin, but it is not difficult toperceive that they connote different things.
There may be knowledge of the likelyconsequences without any intention to cause
the consequences. For example, a mother jumpsinto a well along with her child in
her arms to save herself and her child from the cruelty ofher husband. The child
dies but the mother survives. The act of the mother is culpablehomicide. She might
not have intended to cause death of the child but, as a person havingprudent mind,
which law assumes every person to have, she ought to have known thatjumping
into the well along with the child was likely to cause the death of the child.
Sheought to have known as prudent member of the society that her act was likely to
cause death even when she may not have intended to cause the death of the child.
Knowledge as Mens Rea – Knowledge is awareness on the part of the person concerned,
indicating his mind. A person can be supposed to know when there is a direct appeal to
his senses.10 Knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. It is the state of
mind entertained by a person with regard to existing facts which he has himself observed
or the existence of which has been communicated to him by persons whose veracity he
has no reason to doubt. Knowledge is essentially subjective. The demarcating line
between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin, but it is not difficult to perceive that
they connote different things. 11
Negligence as Mens Rea - If anything is done without any advertence to the consequent
event or result,the mental state in such situation signifies negligence. The event may be
harmless or harmful;if harmful the question arises whether there is legal liability for it. In
civil law (common law) it is decided by considering whether or not a reasonable man in
the same circumstances would have realized the prospect of harm and would have
stopped or changed his course so as to avoid it. If a reasonable man would not, then there
is no liability and the harm must lie where it falls. The word ‘negligence’, therefore, is
used to denote blameworthy inadvertence. It should be recognized that at common law

10
Hari Singh Gour, The Penal Law of India, vol 1, 11thedn., Law Publishers, Allahabad, 1998, p240
11
Basdev v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488
 there is no criminal liability for harm thus caused by inadvertence. Strictly speaking,
negligence may not be a form of mensrea. It is more in the nature of a legal fault.
However, it is made punishable for a utilitarian purpose of hoping to improve people’s
standards of behaviour. Criminal liability for negligence is exceptional at common law;
manslaughter appears to be the only common law crime, which may result
fromnegligence.
Criminal Liability of a Corporation – Originally, the prevalent view was that a corporation
or a body incorporate, which has a separate legal entity, cannot be charged of offences
because of procedural difficulties. The obvious reasons were that a corporation could not
be either arrested or compelled to remain present during criminal proceedings. It, owing
to the absence of ‘mind’, could not form the required ‘intention’ to commit a crime. No
bodily punishment could be inflicted on it. The evolution of corporate criminal
responsibility is a striking instance of judicial change in law. The non-liability of a
corporation soon gave way to the idea that it can be made liable for non-feasance, i.e. an
omission to the act. If a statutory duty is cast upon a corporation or a body incorporate,
and not performed, the corporation or body incorporate can be convicted of the statutory
offence. In State of Maharashtra v. Syndicate Transport Co. Ltd 12 .,the Bombay High
Court did not see any reason for exempting a corporate body from liability for crimes
committed by its directors, agents or servants while acting for or on behalf of the
corporation.However, a corporation cannot be convicted for the offence, which by nature
cannot be committed by a corporation but can only be committed by an individual human
being (e.g. sexual offences, bigamy, perjury etc.).

2.5. Injury to a Human Being as an Element of Crime :

The fourth element, as we have pointed out above, is an injuryto another human being or
to society at large. This injury to another human being should beillegally caused to any
person in body, mind, reputation or property. Therefore, it becomesclear that the
consequences of harmful conduct may not only cause a bodily harm to anotherperson, it
may cause harm to his mind or to his property or to his reputation. Sometimes, by
aharmful conduct no injury is caused to another human being, yet the act may be held

12
AIR 1964 Bom 195
liable asa crime, because in such a case harm is caused to the society at large. All the
public offences,especially offences against the state, e.g. treason, sedition, etc. are
instances of such harms.They are treated to be very grave offences and punished very
severely also.
3. CASES ON THE ELEMENTS OF CRIME :
3.1. Cases on Human Being as an Element of Crime –
 R v. Prince - The appellant was charged with taking an unmarried girl under the age of
16 out of the possession of her father contrary to s.55 of the Offences Against the Person
Act 1861. He knew that the girl was in the custody of her father but he believed on
reasonable grounds that the girl was aged 18.
His conviction was upheld. The offence was one of strict liability as to age and therefore
his reasonable belief was no defense.
 R v. Bishop
 R v. Wheat & Stocks
3.2. Cases on Actus Reus as an Element of Crime –
 R v Quick [1973] - The defendant, a diabetic was charged with assaulting his victim.
The assault occurred whilst the defendant was in a state of hypoglycaemia (low blood
sugar level due to an excess of insulin). The court held that the defendant should have
been acquitted on the ground of automatism. His unconscious state had been the result
of external factors, ie the taking of insulin.
 R v Dytham (1979) - A uniformed police officer saw a man who was being kicked to
death. He took no steps to intervene and drove away when it was over. He was
convicted of the common law offence of misconduct in a public office as he had
neglected to act to protect the victim or apprehend the victim.
 Om Prakash v. State of Punjab – The husband was attempting to kill his wife by
deliberately failing to give her food. The High Court observed that,”the food was
willfully and intentionally withheld to shorten the remaining span of her life. Law does
not require an intention to cause death then and there. It is enough if the facts show that
by withholding food to her, death would have resulted surely though gradually”. 13
 R v White [1910] - The defendant put potassium cyanide into a drink for his mother
with intent to murder her. She was found dead shortly afterwards with the glass, three-
quarters full, beside her. The medical evidence showed that she had died, not of poison,
but of heart failure. The defendant was acquitted of murder and convicted of an attempt

13
AIR 1959 Punj 134, para 45
 to murder. Although the consequence which the defendant intended occurred, he did
not cause it to occur and there was no actusreus of murder.

3.3. Cases on Mens Rea as an Element of Crime –

 KunalMajumdar v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2008, Supreme
Court Judgement delivered on September 12, 2012: Mensrea is an important point to
consider by the High Court when a case was sent for its reference for the confirmation
of a death sentence under CrPC.
 SankaranSukumaran v. Krishnan Saraswathi 14 - SC held thatMensrea is an essential
ingredient of the offence under section 494 (bigamy), where the second marriage has
been entered in a bona fide belief that the first marriage was not subsisting, no office
under this section committed.
 C. Veerudu V/s State of Andhra Pradesh15 - Sc held that u/s 498 (A) cruelty means
"willful conduct''. Willful conduct includes mensrea.
 BanvarilaAgarwal v/s Surya Narayan16- SC held that.The intention of the accused must
be dishonest and there must be mensrea.
 NathuLal v. State of M.P.17&Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab18 - The court held that the
element of mensrea must be read into statutory provisions unless a statute expressly or
by necessary implication rules it out.

14
1984 Cr Lj 317
15
1989 CRLJ 52 (AP)
16
1994 Crlj 370
17
AIR 1966 SC 43
18
(1994) 3 SCC 569
4. CONCLUSION:
There are four essential elements that go to constitute a crime. First, the wrongdoer who must be a
human being and must have the capacity to commit acrime, so that he may be a fit subject for the
infliction of an appropriate punishment.Secondly, there should be an evil intent or mensrea on the
part of such human being. This isalso known as the subjective element of a crime. Thirdly, there
should be an actusreus, i.e. anact committed or omitted in furtherance of such evil intent or mensrea.
This may be calledthe objective element of a crime. Lastly, as a result of the conduct of the human
being actingwith an evil mind, an injury should have been caused to another human being or to the
societyat large. Such an injury should have been caused to any other person in body, mind,reputation
or property. If all these elements are present, generally, we would say that a crimehas been
constituted. However, in some cases we find that a crime is constituted, althoughthere is no mensrea
at all. These are known as cases of strict liability. Then again, in somecases a crime is constituted,
although the actusreus has not consummated and no injury hasresulted to any person. Such cases are
known as inchoate crimes, like attempt, abetment orconspiracy. So also, a crime may be constituted
where only the first two elements are present.In other words, when there is intention alone or even in
some cases there may be an assemblyalone of the persons without any intention at all. These are
exceptional cases of very seriouscrimes which are taken notice of by the state in the larger interests
of the peace andtranquility of the society.
These four elements of crime are necessary to be fulfilled to constitute a crime. It may not be wrong
if the credit to form such effective and precise laws is given to the law-makers, for devising a system
and proper framework to serve the people of the State and ensure peace and tranquility in the state.
The most important function of a state is to take up the responsibility of maintaining peace and order
in the society so that the members of the state feel safe regarding their lives and property. The Indian
Penal Code, 1860, proves to be a foolproof mechanism to ensure justice in the society. If all laws
were so efficient as the IPC, the country would’ve been a lot more safer place to live and to prosper.