STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. AANILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE maxim, 'actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea', under the Indian Penal Code has ruled criminal law for century in common law. According to Shri M. C. Setalvad, "by specifying the varying guilty intention for each offence the Code has in effect built the maxim into each of the definitions and given it statutory effect. Where the Code omits to indicate a particular guilty intent, the presumption, having regard to the general frame of the definitions, would be that the omission must be intentional" (1 ). THE case-law on this point is, however not uniform as per the study of the Indian Law Institute (2 ).

(2.) THEIR Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ranjit D. Udeshi Vs. State of Maharashtra (3) while considering a case of S. 292, IPC, has discussed the above maxim making a slogan for salary any obscene object as an offence.

(3.) SMITH & Hogan in their treatise, "criminal Law" (5th Edn. London Butterworths) has discussed the two elements, "actus reus" and mens rea separately. It has been mentioned as under : "if circumstances exist which, in law, amount to a justification or excuse, no crime is committed. There is no actus reus. There is probably no mens rea either. Knowledge of circumstances of justification or excuse negatives mens rea. To intend to kill, knowing of no such circumstances is a mens rea for murder. But self-defence is a defense. If D intends to kill P because he realises that this is the only way to prevent P from murdering him, he does not intent an actus reus and so has no mens rea. Most defences, indeed, require a mental element. If the mental element of the defence is lacking, the defence is not made out. A successful defence of duress cannot be made out by showing that D was threatened with death if he did not commit the crime charged, if D was unaware of the threat. If D struck P a split second before P would have launched a murderous attack upon him, D cannot set up the defence of self-defence if he was entirely unaware of P's intention. So, where the defences succeed, neither actus reus nor mens rea has been proved. "