Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 79 views

    Lecture-9 (Mens Rea & Statutory Crimes) IPC 1861

    Uploaded by

    Shubham Phophalia
    This document discusses the application of the doctrine of mens rea (guilty mind) to statutory crimes under English law through several important cases. It summarizes two key English cases, R v. Prince (1875) and R v. Talson (1889), which established that mens rea is an essential element for statutory crimes unless a statute expressly or implicitly excludes it. The document also discusses how the doctrine has been applied in India, with Indian courts recognizing mens rea as a necessary component of an offense unless a statute clearly removes it.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lecture-9 (Mens Rea & Statutory Crimes) IPC 1861

    Uploaded by

    Shubham Phophalia
    79 views17 pages
    This document discusses the application of the doctrine of mens rea (guilty mind) to statutory crimes under English law through several important cases. It summarizes two key English cases, R v. Prince (1875) and R v. Talson (1889), which established that mens rea is an essential element for statutory crimes unless a statute expressly or implicitly excludes it. The document also discusses how the doctrine has been applied in India, with Indian courts recognizing mens rea as a necessary component of an offense unless a statute clearly removes it.

    Original Title

    Lecture-9 (Mens rea & Statutory Crimes) IPC 1861

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses the application of the doctrine of mens rea (guilty mind) to statutory crimes under English law through several important cases. It summarizes two key English cases, R v. Prince (1875) and R v. Talson (1889), which established that mens rea is an essential element for statutory crimes unless a statute expressly or implicitly excludes it. The document also discusses how the doctrine has been applied in India, with Indian courts recognizing mens rea as a necessary component of an offense unless a statute clearly removes it.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    79 views17 pages

    Lecture-9 (Mens Rea & Statutory Crimes) IPC 1861

    Uploaded by

    Shubham Phophalia
    This document discusses the application of the doctrine of mens rea (guilty mind) to statutory crimes under English law through several important cases. It summarizes two key English cases, R v. Prince (1875) and R v. Talson (1889), which established that mens rea is an essential element for statutory crimes unless a statute expressly or implicitly excludes it. The document also discusses how the doctrine has been applied in India, with Indian courts recognizing mens rea as a necessary component of an offense unless a statute clearly removes it.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 17

    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 1


    Applica'on
of
the
doctrine
to

    statutory
crimes

      The
maxim
‘actus
non
facit
reum
nisi
mens
sit
rea’

    has
been
applied
to
all
common
law
crimes
in

    England
without
any
reservations.

      
Its
application
to
statutory
offences
was,
however

    uncertain
up
to
1947.

      
Application
of
this
doctrine
to
statutory
crimes
is

    fully
discussed
in
two
leading
English
cases,
viz.
R
v.

    Prince
(1875)
&
R
v.
Talson
(1889).


    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 2

    R
v.
Prince
(1875)

      It
was
held
that
the
prisoner’s
belief
about
the
age
of

    the
girl
was
no
defense.

      Sixteen
judges
tried
the
case
and
all
but
one

    unanimously
held
the
Prince
guilty.

      BRETT
J
who
gave
a
dissenting
judgment,
was
of
the

    view,
that
in
order
to
constitute
an
offence
mens
rea

    is
essential
and
it
was
necessary
for
the
prosecution
to

    prove
mens
rea
on
the
part
of
the
accused.



    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 3

    Contd..

      BRAMWELL
J.
said
that
in
offences
which
are
legal
wrongs

    (malum
prohibitum)
it
is
the
duty
of
the
prosecution
to

    establish
mens
rea,
but
in
offences
which
are
malum
in
se
both

    moral
as
well
as
legal
harm,
mens
rea
is
presumed
and
it
need

    not
be
proved
specifically.

      DENMON
J
convicted
the
prince
on
the
ground
that
he

    knowingly
committed
a
civil
wrong
by
taking
the
girl
from
the

    lawful
custody
of
her
parents.

      BLACKBURN
J
took
the
view
that
the
intention
of
the
statute

    sufficiently
appeared
to
have
been
to
punish
abduction

    irrespective
of
any
knowledge
on
the
part
of
the
accused
about

    the
girl’s
age.

      The
real
ground
of
conviction,
however,
was
that
the
accused

    had
committed
an
act
which
was
forbidden
by
the
statute
and
it

    was
not
only
a
legal
wrong
but
also
a
moral
wrong.

    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 4

    R
v.
Talson
(1889)

      The
accused
was
tried
under
Section
57
of
the
Offences
Against

    The
Person
Act,
1861
for
having
committed
the
offence
of

    bigamy.

      The
question
before
the
Court
of
Appeal
was
whether
Mrs.

    Talson
had
guilty
intention
in
committing
the
offence
of

    bigamy.

      The
court
by
majority
set
aside
the
conviction
on
the
ground

    that
a
bona
fide
belief
about
the
death
of
the
first
husband
at

    the
time
of
second
marriage
is
a
good
defense
in
an
offence
of

    bigamy.

      The
court
also
laid
down
that
the
doctrine
of
mens
rea

would

    be
applied
in
statutory
offences
also
unless
the
same
is
ruled

    out
by
the
statute
either
expressly
or
by
necessary
implication.



    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 5

    R
v.
Wheat
&
Stock
(1921)
2
KB
119

      An
uneducated
man,
believing
in
good
faith
that
his
solicitor

    according
to
his
instructions
had
obtained
divorce
from
his
first
wife,

    married
another
lady.

      He
was
convicted
for
the
offence
of
bigamy
on
the
ground
that

    reasonable
belief
about
the
dissolution
of
marriage
is
no
defense
to

    the
charge
of
bigamy.



    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 6

    Sherras
v.
De
Rutzen
(1895)
1
QB

    918

      It
was
held
that
Section
16(2)
of
the
Licensing
Act,
1872

    which
prohibits
the
supplying
of
liquor
by
a
licensed

    person
to
a
constable
on
duty,
did
not
apply
where
the

    licensed
person
bona
fide
believed
that
the
constable
was

    off
duty.

      WRIGHT
J,
said
:
“
There
is
a
presumption
that
mens
rea,

    an
evil
intention,
or
a
knowledge
of
the
wrongfulness
of

    the
act,
is
an
essential
ingredient
in
every
offence,
but
that

    presumption
is
liable
to
be
displaced
either
by
the
words

    of
the
statute
creating
the
offence
or
by
the
subject
matter

    with
which
it
deals,
and
both
must
be
considered.”


    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 7

    
Mens
rea
and
Indian
Law

      Sir
J.D.
Mayne,
Ratanlal
and
Gaur
says
that
the
Doctrine
of
Mens
rea

    under
I.P.C.
is
wholly
out
of
place.

      The
word
‘mens
rea’
has
no
where
been
used
in
I.P.C.
but
it
has
been

    applied
in
two
different
ways:


      (a)
While
defining
offences,
words
used
indicate
the
actual
criminal

    intent
required
for
the
offence.
The
words,
fraudulently,
dishonestly,

    voluntarily
&
intentionally
etc.
used
in
definitions
indicate
the

    criminal
intent.

      (b)
I.P.C.
contains
a
separate
chapter
on
General
Exceptions
which

    indicates
the
circumstances
where
absence
of
criminal
intent
may
be

    presumed.

      The
doctrine
of
mens
rea
has
been
applied
by
courts
in
India
and
now

    it
is
settled
law,
that
‘mens
rea’
is
an
essential
ingredient
of
offence.’

    And
this
point
has
been
under
judicial
scrutiny
on
many
occasions.



    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 8

    State
of
Maharashtra
v.
M.H.

    George
AIR
1965
SC
722

      The
accused
was
prosecuted
by
the
State
for
bringing

    into
India
prohibited
quantity
of
gold
in
violation
of

    statutory
prohibitions
imposed
u/s.
8
of
FERA,
1947

    and
notification
issued
there
under.


      Supreme
Court
held
the
accused
liable
and
observed

    that,
unless
the
statute
either
clearly
or
by
necessary

    implications
rules
out
mens
rea
as
a
constituent
part

    of
a
crime,
an
accused
should
not
be
found
guilty,

    unless
he
has
got
a
guilty
mind.


    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 9

    Nathulal
v.
State
of
M.P.
AIR
1966

    SC
43

      The
accused
a
food
grain
dealer,
applied
for
a
license

    and
deposited
the
requisite
license
fee.

      He
without
the
knowledge
of
rejection
of
his

    application
purchased
food
grains
and
sent
returns
to

    the
licensing

authority
who
on
checking
found
that
it

    was
in
excess
of
the
quantity
permitted
by
Sec.
7
of

    M.P.
Food
Grains
Dealers
Licensing
Order,
1958.

      The
accused
on
being
prosecuted
was
acquitted
on

    the
ground
that
he
had
no
guilty
mind.


    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 10



    Generally,
offences
created
by
the
Prevention
of
Food

    Adulteration
Act
and
Drugs
Act,
Weights
and
Measures
Act
are

    in
terms
of
absolute
prohibition
and
the
offender
is
liable

    without
proof
of
guilty
knowledge.


    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 11 

    Inder
Sain
v.
State
of
Punjab,

    (1973)
2
SCC
372

      Here,
the
accused
got
a
parcel
of
apples
released
from

    the
railways.


      On
being
intercepted
by
the
police,
the
parcel
was

    found
to
contain
opium
along
with
apples.
He
was

    held
guilty.

      Section
10
of
the
Opium
Act,
1878
provides
:
“In

    prosecutions
under
Sec.
9,
it
shall
be
presumed,
until

    the
contrary
is
proved,
that
all
opium
for
which
the

    accused
person
is
unable
to
account
satisfactorily
is

    the
opium
in
respect
of
which
he
has
committed
an

    offence
under
this
Act.”

    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 12

    The
evil
intent
of
the
wrong
doer
is
indicated
by
the
use
of

    such
words
as
intentionally,
voluntarily,
fraudulently,

    dishonestly,
malignantly,
wantonly,
maliciously
etc.


    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 

    13
    Voluntarily

      Sec.
39
of
IPC
defines
the
word,
‘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.



    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 14



    Fraudulently
and
Dishonestly

      Sec.
24
of
IPC
defines
the
word
‘dishonestly’,
but
not
the
word,

    ‘fraudulently’.

      Sec.
25
defines
fraudulently,
but
it
is
not
a
precise
definition.

      “Dishonestly”.‐
Whoever
does
anything
with
the
intention
of

    causing
wrongful
gain
to
one
person
or
wrongful
loss
to
another

    person,
is
said
to
do
that
thing
“dishonestly”.

      “Fraudulently”.‐
A
person
is
said
to
do
a
thing
fraudulently
if
he

    does
that
thing
with
intent
to
defraud
but
not
otherwise.

      Fraud
involves
deception
and
Legal
fraud
involves
deception

    and
intention
to
injure.

      Now,
deception
like
falsehood
is
only
a
moral
wrong
and
law
do

    not
punish
falsehood
unless
it
injures
someone
else.


    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 15



    Difference
between
Fraudulently

    and
Dishonestly

      Shamshul
Huda
had
differentiated
them:

      (a)
Fraud
involves
deception
necessarily
while

    dishonestly
does
not.

      (b)
Dishonestly
necessarily
involves
the
idea
of
injury

    to
property
as
well
as
injury
of
every
other
kind
i.e.

    injury
to
body,
mind
or
reputation.

      (c)
A
dishonest
intention
is
intention
to
cause
loss
of

    specified
property
belonging
to
a
particular
person.

    Fraudulently,
on
the
other
hand
may
refer
to
injury
in

    respect
of
unspecified
property,
to
unknown
and

    unascertained
persons.

    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 16

    Knowingly

      A
man
about
to
do
a
thing
has
a
suspicion
that
what
he
is
going

    to
do
may
have
been
prohibited.

      For
eg.
Selling
food
grains
at
exorbitant
prices
in
days
of

    scarcity
in
the
State,
but
then
deliberately
omits
to
make

    further
enquiry,
because
he
wants
to
remain
in
ignorance,
then

    he
is
deemed
to
have
knowledge.

      This
is
often
expressed
by
saying,
‘He
shut
his
eyes
to
the
fact
or

    that
he
was
will
fully
blind.

      Lord
Heward
C.J.,
has
characterized
such
attitude,
and
said:

    ‘The
respondent
deliberately
refrained
from
making
enquiries,

    the
result
of
which
he
might
not
have
cared
to
have’.

      In
effect,
it
is
nothing
but
a
finding
that
the
defendant
intended

    to
cheat
the
administration
of
justice.


    15/7/11
 Lecture
9
 17


    You might also like