IPC Criminal Liability

IPC – Principle of criminal liability

Posted on

IPC – Principle of criminal liability

Table of content show

Principle of criminal liability

IPC an introduction

  • Principle of criminal liability – Recognition of the mental and physical elements

The most famous principal of criminal liability in the form of a latin maxim thus:

actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,

The Latin maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” means that a person is not guilty of a crime unless both a wrongful act and a guilty mind are present.

It means a guilty act together with a guilty mind constitutes a crime or there can be no crime without a guilty mind. It highlights that to be found guilty, a person must have committed the prohibited act with a wrongful intention or mindset.

Actus rea:

Any act or omission which is prohibited by law, is called actus rea.

Mens rea:

Whenever any person does an act with guilty mind, it is called mens rea.

The guilty mind and actus rea both must be present at the same time to entail conviction under criminal law.

Application of the principal of Criminal Liability

Application of the principal of actus non facit reum nisi mens sits rea in India. The principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is applicable in India both in the Indian penal code and in other criminals’ statutes.

 In the former (IPC), the maxim is applicable in three ways –

  •  Positively
  •  Negatively
  • Strict liability.

Positive application

Different words denoting different guilty minds have been used in the code.

Words such as intentionally, knowingly, rashly, negligently, dishonestly, fraudulently, and the like have been used in different sections of the code while describing a particular offence.

This shows that for the particular offence that particular word denotes the guilty mind, which must be proved against the offender for his conviction.

For instance in theft under section 378 dishonest intention of the offender must be proved.

Negative application

Negative application of the concept of mens rea in the Indian penal code is visible in Chapter 4th dealing with general exceptions. The various sections 76 to 106 in this chapter show that an offender cannot be held guilty of an offence if any of these exceptions is available to him, because the law presumes that his guilty mind is absent when he is acting under an exception. 

For instance, the question as to why is an offender not guilty when acting under mistake of fact under section 76 or 79, or under unsoundness of mind under section 84, or under intoxication under section 85 of the code is because he does not have a guilty mind of committing the offence whilst acting under the mistake, unsoundness of mind or intoxication. All these exceptions presume absence of guilty mind on the part of the offender. 

Strict liability.

In certain offences  mere doing something has been made punishable, and there is no need to prove any guilty mind against the offender.

In such case, the law presumes that doing of that thing must have been done with guilty mind, and so is punishable.

For instance, Section 292 of the IPC deals with the sale, distribution, or circulation of obscene materials. Under this section, the mere act of selling, distributing, importing, exporting, or possessing obscene objects is made punishable, regardless of the intent or guilty mind (mens rea) of the individual involved. This means that it is a strict liability offense, where the mere act itself is enough to constitute a crime.

  • Nuisance
  • Kidnapping
  • Abducting
  • Bigamy etc.

In certain statutes other than the Indian Penal Code this strict liability principal has been incorporated in India. The arms act, 1959, The prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and many other statutes has similar provisions.

  • Actus Reus

      any act or omission which is prohibited by law is called actus reus

 it is of two types direct or indirect is of six types according to Kenny

  • Where there’s no physical participation – It’s not necessary for criminal liability that the offender should physically participate within the commission of the crime.

For instance, a person may be convicted as an accessory, abetter or a conspirator as the actus reus will be imputed to him also.

  • Where the participation is indirect –Indirect participation on the part of the offender may also result in his conviction since the actus reus may be attributed to him.

For instance, secretly mixing poison in the food of a person with the expectation or knowledge that the same would be served to him by another would mean that it was the actus reus of the poison mixer which resulted into the offence.

  • Where another person has intervened – There may be a situation where a particular event has resulted partly by the act or omission of the Prisoner and partially by that of another person who has intervened in the matter.

In such cases the courts may be in a dilemma with respect to the question as to whose actus reus it was. If the consequences of an offence was that of the prisoner, it would be his actus reus, while if the consequence was that of the intervener, The actus reus would be attributed.

  • Where the victim’s own conduct has affected the result – 

There may be a situation where the accused does something against the victim as a result of which the victim suffers injuries, and then the victim’s own conduct affects the final result.

If in such a situation the court concludes that the final result would still have remain the same even if the victim had not done anything subsequently, the actus reus would be attributed to the accused.

  • Contributory negligence of the victim – Even though the plea of contributory negligence is an important plea in the domain of law of tort, it is not so in law of crimes.

Therefore, if the offender pleads negligence on the of the victim towards the harm suffered by him, his plea fails and actus reus would be attributed to the offender alone.

For instance, if a driver drives his car at a dangerous speed and runs over the victim, a pedestrian, who himself was negligent; the driver would not be allowed to plead contributory negligence on the part of the victim.

  •  Where the participation is superfluous- In such situations where the participation of the accused in a crime has been superfluous, it may still be his actus Reus if he has participated intentionally in the crime. 

For instance, If a person is beating another to death when the accused comes and joins him in the process and gives the victim a blow as a result of which he dies, the accused would be liable, along with the other person, for causing death of the victim if they both could foresee that the victim would die as a result of the attack on him.

Burden of proof in criminal matters. –  

The burden of proof in Criminal Case lies on the prosecution, i.e. the state.

An accused is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. The state must collect all the evidence against the accused and place the same before the court in such a manner that it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has in fact committed the crime of which he is charged.

Like this, In criminal matters, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. This means it is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove that the accused is guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This high standard of proof is required to ensure that there is a significant level of certainty before someone is convicted of a crime, protecting individuals from wrongful convictions. The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” underscores this burden, emphasizing that the accused does not have to prove their innocence; rather, it is the prosecution that must establish guilt through credible and convincing evidence.

Interpretation of a penal statute. –  

  • The principal is that a penal statute is to be interpreted strictly. While interpreting a provision in a penal statute if there appears to be a reasonable doubt or ambiguity, it shall be resolved in favour of the person who would be liable to the penalty. Thus Penal statutes are interpreted strictly, resolving any ambiguity in favor of the accused to ensure fairness and protect against unjust punishment.

Theory of Punishment

  • Retributive theory. –  This theory is based on retribution, a ‘get even’ concept. ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ is the motto of this theory. The wrongdoer should be made to suffer in proportion to the injury he has caused to the victim is the principle behind this theory.
  •  Expiatory theory. –   it is a part of the retributive theory. This theory propounds that the punishment should be in order to adjust the suffering to the sin. [The punishment should be in proportion to the quantum of wrong, and after the wrongdoer undergoes the punishment it is presumed that he gets purified, and thus he once again becomes an accepted member of the society.
  • Deterrent theory. –  The deterrent theory of punishment gives prominence to the notion of deterrence in the mind of the criminal as well as in others. The offender knows that if he violates the law he would be visited with penalty, and this fear in him causes him to behave as a normal human being. Similarly, by punishing the criminal, a deterrent effect is created in the mind of others that if they ever thought of violating the law they too would be visited with penalty, and this fear in them keeps them away from breaking the Law.
  • Preventive theory. –  Preventive theory envisages the imposition of penalty with a view to prevent or disable the offender from committing the offence again. Repetition of the crime is thus prevented by disabling the criminal. Prevention of a wrongful conduct is ensured. It follows the well-known principle ‘prevention is better than cure’. the offender is rendered incapable of committing the crime again. This may be done by imposing capital punishment, or by imprisonment, or by disqualification orders like suspending driving licence in cases of motor vehicle offences, or by preventive detention, and security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour and the like.
  • Reformative theory. –  The reformative theory, a comparatively recent concept, gives emphasis on the reformation of the criminal. It treats criminals as primarily Sick people needing corrective measures with a view to restore them to the society as good citizens. It believes in educating the offenders in such a way as to make them better citizens of tomorrow. It treats a Criminal mind as a diseased mind which requires careful diagnosis and proper attention to cure him.

Protection in respect of conviction for offences (Article 20, Constitution of India)

  • Ex –  Post facto law; “Ex post facto” is a Latin term meaning “from a thing done afterward.” In legal terms, an ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences or status of actions that were committed or relationship that existed before the enactment of the law. In essence, it applies to actions that were legal when performed but are later made illegal, or actions that were illegal when performed but are later made legal. Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. This term refers to laws that impose penalties or convictions for actions that were legal when performed, and also increase the penalty for such actions retrospectively. In essence, ex post facto laws apply punishments or consequences after the fact, which is constitutionally forbidden under Indian law.

  • Protection against Double jeopardy; In India, constitutional protection against double jeopardy is enshrined in Article 20(2), which ensures that no person can be prosecuted and punished more than once for the same offence. Protection against double jeopardy ensures that individuals cannot be tried or punished more than once for the same offense, whether they have been acquitted or convicted. This principle safeguards against repeated prosecution by the state, upholding fairness and finality in legal proceedings. It is a fundamental legal safeguard to prevent harassment and ensure justice for individuals accused of crimes.

  • Protection against Self – incrimination. Protection against self-incrimination is a legal principle that prevents a person from being compelled to testify against themselves in a criminal case. It ensures that individuals cannot be forced to provide evidence or make statements that could potentially implicate them in a crime. This principle is often associated with the right to remain silent and the right to avoid being compelled to testify in court or provide self-incriminating evidence during police interrogations or legal proceedings. In India, Article 20(3) of the Constitution grants accused persons the right against self-incrimination, ensuring they cannot be compelled to testify against themselves. However, witnesses do not enjoy the same protection. Defendants must be informed of their rights before making any statements that could incriminate them.

Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases( Article 22, Constitution of India)

Protection under ordinary law – 

  • 1. Right to be informed on ground of  arrest. Article 22 of the Indian Constitution guarantees certain rights to individuals who have been arrested. It mandates that the arrested person must be informed of the grounds of their arrest at the time of arrest or soon thereafter. Additionally, the article grants the arrested person the right to inform a family member, relative, or friend about their arrest. These provisions are crucial safeguards aimed at ensuring transparency in the arrest process, protecting the rights of the accused, and facilitating access to legal assistance and support during detention.
  • 2. Right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. Article 22 ensures the right to consult and to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.This right guarantees that individuals accused of a crime can seek advice, guidance, and representation from a lawyer of their choosing. It enables them to understand their legal rights, prepare a defense, and receive fair treatment in accordance with the law.
  • 3. Right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. Article 22 ensures the right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of his arrest. The right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest is a crucial legal safeguard ensuring that individuals detained by authorities are promptly brought before a judicial officer.
  • 4. Not to be detained beyond 24 hours without Magistrate’s Authority. The right not to be detained beyond 24 hours without the authority of a magistrate is a fundamental legal protection that prevents arbitrary or prolonged detention without judicial oversight. This safeguard ensures that individuals arrested or detained must be promptly brought before a magistrate within 24 hours of their arrest. It is enshrined in Article 22(2) of the Indian Constitution and aims to safeguard against unlawful or unauthorized detention.

Reference

 Professor Tridivesh Bhattacharya, The Indian Penal Code, (CLA) 2013

IPC

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *