-. -- - w-:::, - ••, t-' ' '-'!J\JIIU\.,\.A t-'Ulll...;111111\.,lll.

· Crimes can be broken down into elements, which the prosecution_ ~u st

prove beyo nd a reasonable doubt. Criminal elements are set forth in criminal
statute_s; or cases in jurisdictions that allow for common-law crimes. With
exceptions, every cr~me-has at least the following elements:
• A human being ·
• A criminql <:tct, also called actus reus
• A criminal intent, also called mens rea and
• A damage/injury
Most crimes consist of two broad elements: mens rea and actus reus.
Mens rea means to have "a guilty mind." The rationale behind the rule is that it is
wrong for society to punish those who innocently cause harm. Actus reus literally
means "guilty act," and generally refers to an overt act in furtherance of a crime.
Requiring an overt act as part of a crime means that society has chosen to punish
only bad deed~, .not bad thoughts.
"Actus reus means the whole definition of the crime with the exception
of the mental element and it even includes a mental element in so far as that is
contained in the definition of an act. This meaning of actus reus follows inevitably
from the proposition that all the constituents of a crime .are either actus reus or
mens rea Actus reus includes, in the terminology here suggested not merely
that whole objective situation that has to be proved by the prosecution, but also
the absence of any ground of justification or excuse, whether such justification
or excuse be stated in any statute creating the crime or imposed by the courts
· in accordance with general principles (though not including matters of excuse
1
depending on absence of mens rea) . .

2.1 A Human Being:

The wrongful act m~st be committed by 'human being' making it the most
primitive element of any crime. As the primitive element a human being must
exhibit actus reus and mens rea causing injury to constitute a crime. Any non-
living thing o~ anirr_ials are not considered in the category of 'person/human being',
although ancient times have few references wherein animals were held liable and
were punished for_a ~rime. The criminal law back then was largely dominated by
the concept of retributive theory, punishments were inflicted on animals too, for the
injury caused by them, f?r instance, a pig was burnt in Paris for having devoured a
child and a horse was killed for kicking a man.
In the Indian Penal Code 1860, if an animal causes an injury the animal
is not held liable instead of it, the owner is held liable for such injury. To constitute
a valid element of a human being, he, who must be under the legal 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' and
the definition, as is clear from the language of this section, is not exhaustive but
inclusive. The word 'person' includes a juridical person and as such an idol_being a
juridical person capable of owning property is a 'person' within the meaning of this
section. An unborn child may be.called a person if its body is sufficiently developed
in its mother's womb to call it a child.
2.2 The Physical Act: Actus reus
The actus reus is the physical action that a person must take in order to be
responsible for a criminal offense. Although, it is also possible for one to commit
a crime by an omission rather than by an affirmative act; that is, a failure to do
something may also constitute the necessary actus reus. Hence, the actus reus
element is any act or omission containing the ingredients of causation and social
harm.
Example:
Rick shoots Allan in the leg, causing Allan serious rnJury. Rick
committed the voluntary act of shooting Allan, which caused the harm
of Allan's serious injury.
Amber neglects to file or pay income tax for five years. Amber's
voluntary failure to perform the legally required act of filing and paying
taxes causes the harm of unpaid taxes.
An affirmative actus reus required for burglary is that the defendant must
break and enter into a roofed structure or into a vehicle. Many specific actions
could potentially constitute this actus reus, such as pulling the trigger to shoot
through a closed door or smashing a window to break into a car.
The actus reus in the form of omission may in the form of not following the
traffic signal, not taking due care and exhibiting a negligent behaviour.
In order to be responsible for a particular crime, a person must in some
way perform the act legally required for that crime. The actus reus is different from
a hope, a des,re, or a w,sh. A. person ma'1 w\sh to comm,t a cr\me and ma'1 th\nK
about that cr\me often, but unt\\ he or she actua\\'1 carr\es out that act,on, the cr\me
has not been comm\tted, and the person cannot be he\d respons\b\e.
 2.3 The Mental State: Mens rea
. Actus ~eus makes up only one part of the criminal culpabili.ty requirement.
Only m ~are circumstances can someone be convicted of a crime without both
the physical_ act and the gui_l~y mind. The guilty mind is known as mens rea; it is
also called intent or culp~b1hty. Broadly speaking, mens rea is the mental state
that a _pe~son has ~t the time that he or she performs the acts that constitute the
commIssIon of a cnme. ·
Example:
If the a·ccused stabbed the victim with desire to cause the victim's death,
then the accused had the mens rea of "specific intent to kill," which is one variety
· of mens rea that makes a person criminally liable for murder. ·
The essence of criminal law has been sa1d to lie in the maxim· "actus non
I

facit reum nisi mens sit rea." Bishop writes, "There can be no crime large or small,
without an evil mind. It is therefore a principle of our legal system, as probably it is
of every other, that the essence of an offense is the wrongful intent, without which
it cannot exist." This examination of the mental element or mens rea requisite for
crime, will be restricted with reference to the use of the term itself in so far as it
signifies the mental element necessary to convict for any crime, and only regarding
crimes not based upon negligence.

2.3.1 Motive:
Motive a term sometimes used to mean intent, is actually slightly different
from mens rea'. Motive usually means the emotion prompting~ person to act. For
instance the motive for a man's killing his wife's lover would be jealousy. In this
~ense, ~otive is hot a form of mens rea and is not an element of required proof for
criminal culpability. .
· In other words, the criminal actor is not liable for the jealousy that
motivated him to commit the killing (although he may be liable for the killing in
• other ways). Nonetheless, motive is often i~portant as~ matter of proof because it .
may help to identify the perpetrator of a crime ~r ~xpl~m ~hy _a. suspect ma_y have
. acted in a particular way. Mens rea may be sat1sf1ed m_ different ways for ~1ffe:.rent
crimes or even for the same crime. The mens rea requirement for murder m many
jurisdi~tions is malice or a fore thought, a form of m~ns rea t_
h'at can exist in four
different mental states:
1. A[R 1987 All 235
 1. A specific intent to ,kill.
2. An intent to inflict serious bodily injury.
3. A wanton disregard for human life.
4. · The commission of a dangerous felony.
For voluntary killing, many jurisdictions requ!r~ the m~ns rea of intent to
kill, but in the sudden heat of passion. Involuntary killing requires _only the mens
rea of negligence or the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony.
Although a variety of mental states may s~tisfy the requi~ement of mens rea,
some form of mens rea Will be required. Thus, it is essential for prosecutors to
understand what mental state is required for criminal culpability with respect to any
particular crime.
Most of the crimes under the Indian Penal Code are constituted with an
element of guilty intention. The Indian Penal Code by large1 bears out the truth
of the observations by Stephen, J. in the Queen v. Tolsoii "The full definition
of every crime contains expressly or by implication a proposition as · to a state
of mind." And if in some cases it is omitted, the omission should be considered
intentional; e.g. guilty intention is not necessary for the offence of waging war
against the Government of India, sedition, kidnapping and bigamy. It may be
because the framers of the Code might have considered the above-mentioned
off~nces as so_ harmful_ to ~he state and society that they felt it just and expedient to
define th~_m without bringing any word to give effect to the doctrine of mens rea in
the defi_mt1on of these offence~. Some acts themselves are of such a character that ;
they ,raise a strong presumption that-whoever willed the act must have intended
the consequences.
'th b The wo~d m_ens rea has nowhere been used in that Indian Penal Code but
1 as een applied in two different ways:
(i) The chapter of ". General Exceptions" which controls all the ff
not.?nly defined in the Indian Penal Code but also tho d ? ences
punished under special and local laws d . . se escnbed and
which indicates the circumstances wh' eals with general conditions
~ay be presumed. This .shows that the~~ed~bs~nce of criminal intent
gives effect to the doctrine of mens riea. . an enal Code negatively .
(ii) _Every offence in the Indian Penal Code i .
m~lude the precise evil intent which . t~ carefully defined so as to
cn~e. Th_e evil intent is generally indicl!tede essence of a particular
as intentionally', 'voluntarily', 'fraudulentl , ~y _the use of such words
and so on. By the use of the Y, dishonestly' 'wantonly'
ffi . se words the I d' · ' ,
e ect to the doctrine of mens rea po ·t'· n ian Penal Code ·gives
· .. _ _ SI IVely.
lvi) Injury
The fourth requirement of a crime is injury to another person or to · the
society at large. The injury should be illegally caused to any person in body, mind;
reputation or property ·a s according to Section 44 of IPC, 1860 the injury denotes
any harm whatever i\\ega\\y caused to any person in body, mind, reputat\on or ·
property.