Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea

Literal Meaning – An act does not make anyone guilty unless there is a criminal intent or a
guilty mind.

Origin – The two basic components of criminal law is Actus Reus and Mens Rea. Actus Reus
is the wrongful act committed and Mens Rea is the state of mind behind such acts. The Latin
maxim Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea is derived from Mens Rea. Actus Non Facit
Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea further explains as to how Mens Rea is applicable in criminal law. It
states that a person is guilty of a criminal act only if such acts are accompanied by a criminal
intention. This maxim is used to determine whether an act committed is criminal in nature or
not. Sever penal actions are required for crimes committed with specific intend and not for
unanticipated or unintentional acts. However no breach of law can be left unpunished. Thus
this maxim is established to differentiate between intentional and unintentional criminal act
so that the quantum of punishment can be decided accordingly.

Explanation – Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea explains that for any act to be illegal
in nature it must be done with a guilty mind. Thus to convict the defendant, it must be proved
that the criminal act was carried out with a criminal intend. Not only is the act of the accused
important but the intention of the accused to do the specific act is equally important to prove
the guilt of the accused. Thus it can be concluded that mere commission of a criminal act or
breach of law is not sufficient to constitute a crime. It should be combined with the presence
of wrongful intent. Further the mens rea is important to understand the severity of the crime
committed. The essential ingredient is the blameworthy condition of the mind. Its absence
can negate the liability. However the statement without a guilty mind there is no crime is
subjected to certain exceptions such as strict liability. Under strict liability, it is not necessary
to show that a defendant possessed the relevant mens rea for the act committed.

This maxim can find its importance under section 14 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It
states that facts which indicate state of mind or intention are relevant facts in issue.

Illustration – When a person is attacked by another person with an intention to cause grievous
hurt or injury then it is a crime. But when the person who was attacked causes injury to the
other person in private defence then it is an unintentional act. In the first scenario guilty mind
was present but in the second case no intention of causing harm was there. The second act is
categorised as self defence and is dealt under section 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code. In
the first act the person is guilty of criminal act.

Case References – In the case of Brend v. Wood1, Lord Goddard, C.J. held that:-
“It is of the utmost importance for the protection of the liberty of the subject that a court
should always bear in mind that, unless a statute, either clearly or by necessary implication,
rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, the court should not find a man guilty of
an offence against the criminal law unless he has a guilty mind.”2

In R.Balakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala3 it was observed that "Criminal guilt would attach
to a man for violations of criminal law. However, the rule is not absolute and is subject to
limitations indicated in the Latin maxim, actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. It signifies
that there can be no crime without a guilty mind. To make a person criminally accountable, it
must be proved that an act, which is forbidden by law, has been caused by his conduct, and
that the conduct was accompanied by a legally blameworthy attitude of mind. Thus, there are
two components of every crime, a physical element and a mental element, usually
called actus reus and mens rea respectively." Also in the case of Capt. Abdul Sattar Ahmed
Pagarkar vs. R.H. Mendsonsa, Commissioner of Police4 the maxim Actus non facit reum nisi
mens sit rea was explored. It stated that the intention behind the acts is to be understood. In
the present case all the offences which were in question needed existence of an intention to
commit an offence with dishonesty. These have to be dishonest intention of causing wrongful
loss to the person aggrieved and wrongful gain to person who is to be the target of the
investigation.

However in the case of Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra the Supreme Court had held
that “We do not accept the argument that the prosecution must prove that the person who
sells or keeps for sale any obscene object knows that it is obscene before he can be adjudged
guilty5.” Thus the mens rea is not considered as important as the act committed. If the person
is found having obscene material in his possession then he will be liable under sec 292 of
IPC. His intention or knowledge about the obscene material need not be proved.

1
Brend V. Wood, [1946] 175 LT 306
2
legal Service India, Mens Rea in Statutory Offences, http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/831/Mens-Rea-
in-Statutory-Offences.html (last visited May 6, 2019).
3
R.Balakrishna Pillai V. State Of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No. 372 of 2001
4
Capt. Abdul Sattar Ahmed Pagarkar V. R.H. Mendsonsa, Commissioner of Police, 2003 CriLJ 3790
5
Ranjit D. Udeshi V. State of Maharashtra, 1965 AIR 881
Actus Reus

Literal Meaning – A guilty deed or a wrongful act. (Physical act in commencement of a

Origin – Actus Reus is the physical elements of a crime. For a conviction under criminal law
an act or omission must be committed. The fundamental idea behind this maxim is that no
one can be punished solely because of their criminal thoughts or intentions. Criminal
thoughts does not cause any harm to the society until and unless it is accompanied with an act
or omission. The actual physical act in pursuance of the intention is what makes the person
liable of a crime. Thus Actus Reus needs to be established to prove guilt of the accused and
whether the crime had been committed or not.

Explanation – If there is any act or omission which results in wrongful loss or gain of any
person or causes grievous hurt or injury to any person then such acts amounts to actus
reus(culpable action). In other words without a guilty act there can be no crime. Actus Reus
can also be the omission of any act. If any person is legally bound to do certain act s and he
or she wilfully neglects it knowing that such omission will cause loos or damage to certain
persons then such omissions also amounts to actus reus.

Illustrations – If a person carries a knife to another person’s house and repeatedly stabs the
person then the act of carrying the knife and stabbing are both actus reus.

It is the duty of the nurses to take care of the patients and provide them with proper medicines
on time. If any nurse fails to provide the proper medicine to a patient and it turns out to be
fatal then such omissions amounts to actus reus.

Case References - In the case of R v White6 the defendant put potassium cyanide into a drink
for his mother with intent to murder her. She however died due to a heart attack. But her sons
action of placing the potassium cyanide in her drink amounts to actus reus.

In R v Jordan7the victim suffered severe stab wounds and was subsequently admitted into the
hospital. The victim died after 8 days. His wounds were healed but he lost his life due to
medical negligence. Thus the omission on the part of the hospital is also actue reus.

6
R V. White, [1910] 2 KB 124
7
R V. Jordan,(1956) 40 Cr App R 152
Further in the case of R v. Miller8 it was observed that when any person creates a dangerous
situation which will cause harm to others then it is the responsibility of that person to create a
save environment for others. If such act is omitted then it will be held liable.

8
R V. Miller, [1983] 2 AC 161