Introduction
To decide upon any criminal liability, it is imperative to look at whether concepts of mens rea, mistake of fact, and strict liability are applicable in the case or not. These rules help us to have a glimpse into the offender's state of mind at the time of offence. In this article, we'll study these legal principles in light of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), checking how they work and when there are exceptions under these concepts.
Mistake of Fact:
Section 14 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita deals with the "Mistake of Fact." It states that an act committed by a person in a state of intoxication or by mistake of fact, believing himself to be justified by law, is not an offense unless the act would be an offense if the person were not intoxicated and aware of the real facts. This section acknowledges that genuine mistakes, induced by factors like intoxication or misapprehension, may mitigate criminal liability, hence we can see that mens rea and presence of guilt mind is a key issue here as mistake of fact signifies lower level of mens rea.
It should be noted that the BNS distinguishes between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law. While a mistake in doing a lawful act may not incur criminal liability, a clear wrongdoing, even under a mistaken apprehension, may result in criminal charges.
Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat:
The maxim "Ignorantia juris non excusat" emphasizes that ignorance of the law does not excuse one from legal consequences. Mistake of law, even when the party has full knowledge of the facts, is not a defense in criminal cases.
Mens Rea:
The doctrine of mens rea, denoting a guilty intention, is a crucial element in criminal laws across the world. The BNS incorporates mens rea through specific terms such as "intentionally," "knowingly," "voluntarily," "fraudulently," and "dishonestly." The state of mind required extends to all aspects of an act, including the act or omission, circumstances, and consequences.
Application of Mens Rea in Statutory Crimes:
Halsbury's Laws of England and legal authorities highlight that mens rea is presumed to be an essential element in every offense unless displaced by the words of the statute or the subject matter it deals with.
Various sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deal with the concept of Mens Area:
1. Section 100 BNS - Culpable Homicide:
This section outlines culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It requires the accused to have the mens rea, indicating an intention to cause death or bodily harm likely to cause death.
2. Section 101 BNS - Murder:
Section 101 of BNS defines murder and specifies the circumstances under which culpable homicide becomes murder. It distinguishes between murder and culpable homicide, largely based on mens rea.
3. Section 3 BNS - Acts Done by Several Persons in Furtherance of Common Intention:
This section deals with cases where several persons act together to commit an offense. It emphasizes the shared intention or mens rea among the individuals involved.
4. Section 61 BNS- Criminal Conspiracy:
Section 61 addresses criminal conspiracy, requiring an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offense. The agreement implies a shared mens rea to engage in unlawful activities.
Strict Liability and Exceptions:
The concept of strict liability involves offenses where mens rea is not an essential element. This includes offenses related to public health, safety, and social welfare. Specific sections in the BNS, such as 147 BNS and 137 BNS establish strict liability. If the offence has traces of strict liability, the offenders may be penalized even without a guilty mind.
Section 106 of BNS - Causing Death by Negligence:
Section 106 of the BNS is an example of strict liability. It deals with causing death by negligence, and the focus is on the negligent act itself rather than the intention behind it. Even without a mens rea to cause death, if death results from a negligent act, the offender can be held criminally liable.
Section 138 of NI Act - Offenses Related to Negotiable Instruments:
In the context of strict liability, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deals with offenses related to dishonor of a cheque for insufficiency of funds. The emphasis is on the act itself, and the accused can be held liable irrespective of the intention behind issuing the cheque.
In the cases of Ravula Hariprasada Rao v. The State and State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, Supreme Court held that unless a statute explicitly rules out mens rea, a person should not be found guilty without a guilty mind.
FAQs on mens rea and strict liability under BNS:
1. What is Mens Rea, and how is it incorporated in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)?
Mens Rea, denoting a guilty intention, is crucial in criminal law. BNS incorporates mens rea through terms like "intentionally," "knowingly," "voluntarily," "fraudulently," and "dishonestly" across various sections, emphasizing the state of mind in all aspects of an act.
2. How is Mens Rea applied in specific crimes under BNS?
Sections like 100 (Culpable Homicide), 101 (Murder), 3 (Acts Done by Several Persons), and 61 (Criminal Conspiracy) of BNS outline the application of mens rea in different offenses, requiring an intentional state of mind.
3. What is Strict Liability, and are there exceptions in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)?
Strict liability in BNS involves offenses where mens rea is not essential. Sections like 147, 152A, and 137 establish strict liability, especially in cases related to public health, safety, and social welfare.
4. Can you provide examples of Strict Liability under BNS?
Sections 106 (Causing Death by Negligence) and 138 (Offenses Related to Negotiable Instruments) illustrate strict liability under BNS, where the focus is on the act itself, regardless of the intention behind it.
Mens rea and strict liability under BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)
Comments