I] Explain the fundamental elements of criminal liability with the help of examples and

case laws.

A crime* is a moral wrong committed against the society causing a disruption of peace. The
burden of proof is on the prosecution to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.1 Law provides
for benefit of doubt to the accused.2
A person cannot be found guilty of a criminal offence unless two elements are present, mens
rea i.e. a guilty mind and an actus reus i.e. a guilty act. Exception – Offences of Strict and
absolute Liability wherein the guilty mind need not be proved.3
Actus reus + Mens rea = Criminal Offence

Mens Rea
“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”.
This maxim means “The act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty mind.”
An act assumes the character of a penal offence it if is impelled with a mental design to
achieve the result which the law seeks to prevent. It is Latin for ‘guilty mind’ and refers to
the state of mind of the person committing the crime. Mens rea does not exist physically but
is an essential element of crime.4

The words “mens rea” are mentioned in Chapter IV, General Exceptions, Indian Penal Code,
1860.5 Words like fraudulently, dishonestly, intentionally, etc. have been used in various
sections in the code to signify a state of mind.6
The doctrine of mens rea has been imported in the criminal law through judicial decisions.7
Mens rea varies with crime and is a subjective concept.8 Intention and knowledge form first
degree mens rea, whereas, recklessness and negligence comprise second degree mens rea

* In Indian law, children below the age of seven are judged as guiltless, and cannot be held guilty for any
offence.
1
R. Balakrishna v. State of Kerela, (2003) 9 SCC 700.
2
Gujarat Travancore Agency, Cochin v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala, 1989 AIR 1671, 1989 SCR
(2)1000. The accused was acquitted as the mens rea behind deliberate non-payment of custom duties could not
be proved by the prosecution. The accused is liable for benefit of doubt.
3
State Of Maharashtra vs Mayer Hans George, 1965 AIR 722, 1965 SCR (1) 123.
4
Nathulal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43, 1966 CriLJ 71.
5
R v. Woollin, [1999] AC 82 House of Lords, Intention is defined differently in the respective types of crimes.
6
In Sankaran Sukumaran vs. Krishnan Saraswathi (1984 CrLJ 317), the Supreme Court held that Mens Rea is
an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 494 (Bigamy), where the second marriage has been entered
in a bona fide belief that the first marriage was not subsisting, no offence under Section 494 is committed.
7
In re Panthan Venkayya 53 Mad. 444; Kochu Mohammed mail v. Kadya Amma 1959 Ker. 151; C.T. Prim v.
The State AIR 1961 Cal. 177, Dissenting opinion of Justice K. Subbarao in George S. case AIR 1965 SC 722;
Nathu M v. State of MPAIR 1966 SC 43 and Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab 1994 SCC (Cri) 899.
8
R v. G and another, [2003] 3 WLR House of Lords
wherein the accused is aware of the consequences but continues to perform the Act. For
Example, A runs onto a busy road without looking and causes damage to a car, although he
did not intend to do so but it is common knowledge that the acts of A would lead to these
consequences hence recklessness also constitutes mens rea.9
Intention may be direct or indirect. Every person is presumed to be aware of the natural
consequences of his acts, by the application of the Layman’s test. For example, if A wishes to
claim B's property, and shoots at B, it signifies direct intention. Whereas, if in the same case
A was to shoot through a glass window, the damage caused to the glass window and
subsequent damages would constitute the natural consequences of the said Act constituting
indirect intention. Guilty intention is an essential for the offence of cheating as held in Ajay
Mitra v. State of Madhya Pradesh.10

Actus Reus

Actus Reus is the physical element of a crime. It can be in the form of an act, example, theft,
murder, etc., an omission which may exist in a doctor- patient or student-teacher relationship
or a state of affairs, for example, person being found in possession of drugs, intoxicated while
driving, etc. It refers to the actual conduct of the accused. For Example, in the offence of
battery the actus reus is the unlawful application of force to another.
An actus reus can consist of more than just an act, it comprises all the elements of the offence
other than the state of mind.11 It may include the circumstances or the consequences of what
was done.12 It is tested with an objective approach; if the act exists liability exists.13
Circumstances are taken into consideration to either conclusively prove guilt, or to prove
reasonable doubt of intention. For example, carrying a knife into someone’s house with the
intention of committing murder, or driving a car on a foggy night and accidentally striking
someone. If the accused is to be found guilty of a crime, his or her behaviour in committing
the act must have been voluntary mere preparation in certain cases does not constitute a
crime.14 Involuntary acts in some cases do not give rise to criminal liability. 15 For example,

9
Ibid 6
10
(2003) 3 SCC 11.
11
Glanville Williams, "Criminal Law" General Part (2nd editon) p.18.
12
R. v. Eagleton, (1855) Dears 515
13
In Premlal v. State of M. P. 1969 Jab LJ
14
R. v. Ramakka, (1885) I.L.R. 8 Mad. 5.
15
Leicester v. Pearson (1952), A car driver was prosecuted for failing to give precedence to a person crossing
the road on a zebra crossing but was acquitted hwen it was proved that the car was pushed onto the zebra
crossing due to another car pushing it from behind.
heavy intoxication leading to an accident subsequently causing an injury to another is a
voluntary offence.16
Actus Reus can also be the omission of an act, by omitting to do something that the accused
knows he is bound by duty or law to do, For example, a mother intentionally omits to feed
her child, leading to the child’s death.17
If the elements of a crime are partially present, but the act has indirectly led to the intended
consequences the act will be considered as a continuing offence if it exists in close proximity
to the original act and the accused will be prosecuted.18

16
R v. Brady, [2006] EWCA Crim 2413.
17
R v. Gibbins and Proctor(2006), A child was kept in a different room in the house and was starved to death.
18
Melli and Others v. R (1954).
II] Explain the principles of intra-territorial and extra-territorial jurisdiction in IPC
with the help of case laws.

Jurisdiction is an aspect of state sovereignty and it refers to judicial, legislative and

administrative competence.19 Law of criminal jurisdiction in India is governed by Ss. 2 -4 of
IPC and S. 188 of Cr PC.2021
International law as it stands at present, does not contain a general prohibition to extend the
application of their laws and jurisdiction of their courts to persons, property and acts outside
their territory as held in the Lotus Case.2223

Territorial Jurisdiction
Section 224 IPC talks about territorial jurisdiction on every person which includes all persons
without limitation and irrespective of nationality, status, caste, colour or creed, except such
persons who are exempted under statute, Constitution of India or under international law.
A country also has territorial jurisdiction over its water lying adjacent to its boundaries which
extends to 12 nautical miles from the coast.
The general principle of criminal jurisdiction is that jurisdiction is determined by the locality
of the offence irrespective of the nationality or other similar attributes for the offender.25
S. 188 CrPc lays down that the finding place of an accused will determine the jurisdiction of
the respective courts. The Supreme Court held that the physical presence of the offender is
immaterial to be incorporated into jurisdiction of a court. The jurisdiction is decided by the
locality of commission of crime. In a landmark case the facts of which are that the accused, a
Pakistani national, while staying at Karachi made false representations through letters, to the
complainant at Bombay and induced the latter to part with money at Bombay. The Supreme
Court held that the offence was committed by the accused at Bombay even though he was not

19
Brownie, Principles of Public International Law (1998) p. 28.
20
Section 188. Offences committed outside India. When an offence is committed outside India:
(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high seas or elsewhere; or
(b) by a person not being such citizen, on any ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt with in respect
of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within India at which he may be found.
Provided that, notwithstanding in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence shall be
inquired into or tried in India except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
21
Section 2 of the Indian Penal Code declares that every person shall be liable to punishment under the code and
not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions of the code of which he shall be guilty within
India.
22
(1927) PCIJ, Ser A, No 10.
23
P.M. Bakshi, "Extra territorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Law", Indian Journal of Criminology & Crimnalistia,
19 (1998) p. 14 at 3.
24
Ibid 21
25
Mobarik Alt Ahmed v. State of Bombay, AIR 1957 SC 857 (869): 1957 Cri LJ 1346.
physically present there.26 Even corporate bodies are liable for punishment for criminal
offences.27
Following two conditions are necessary to make a person liable to punishment under the
section:
(a) the act or omissions charged against the provisions of the code.
(b) Such person must be guilty of such act or omission within the borders of "India". In other
words, the guilty conduct must have taken place in India.
Exceptions – Mentioned under Section 4 and part of extra territorial jurisdiction.

The court applied this principle in the case of Jitendranatk Ghosh v. The Chief Secretary of
Government of Bengal,28wherein it was held that a foreigner cannot plead ignorance of law if
he commits an offence within or outside the territory of India having an effect thereon.29 A
person who in India instigates the commission of an offence outside India is also liable to
punishment and vice versa.30 Foreigners who initiate offences abroad which have an effect on
the Indian territory are also punishable under the Penal Code.31

Extra territorial jurisdiction

Section 332 and 433 of the Penal Code talk about extra territorial jurisdiction in the literal
sense it signifies jurisdiction on offences committed beyond the territory of India. Section 3
makes not only Indian citizens liable for offences committed abroad (even though their acts
may not be punishable at the place where they are committed) but also others who are
covered by any special law bringing them under Indian jurisdiction.34

26
Ibid 23
27
State of Maharashtra v. Syndicate Transport Company, 1964(2) Cri LJ 276.
28
(1932) 60 Cal.
29
State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George, AIR 1965 SC 722.
30
S. 108 IPC.
31
Chotelal v. Emperor, 36 Bora. 524; Wheeler v. Emperor, 29 Cr LJ 10.
32
Section 3. Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried within, India. Any
person liable, by any Indian law to be tried for an offence committed beyond India, shall be dealt with according
to the provisions of this Code for any act committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been
committed within India.
33
Section 4. Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences- The provisions of this Code also apply to any
offence committed by - (1) Any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India; (2) Any person on any
ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be; Explanation- In this section the word "offence" includes
every act committed
outside India which, if committed in India would be punishable under this Code.
34
Giani Bakshish Singh v. Govt. of India, (1973) 2 SCC 688 at 692, para 3.
For example, the Italian marines case35, which is an ongoing international controversy about
a shooting that happened in the sea off the Western coast of India. There was huge hue and
cry about the jurisdiction matters and stands unresolved even today although the mariners
were arrested in India.
Similarly, after the Mumbai blasts of 1993 there was an issue of jurisdiction on the
mastermind of the blasts, Abu Salem between India and Portugal but since he was arrested in
India for an offences committing within its limits he was tried in Indian courts.

The principle behind extension of jurisdiction is based on the contention that every sovereign
state can regulate the conduct of its citizens, wherever they might be for the time being. 36 In
the case of an 'Indian Citizen' committing an offence outside India he will be liable to be tried
at any place where he may be found in India, 'wherever' he may have committed the offence.
For Example, if an Indian citizen physically assaults another in X country and is found in a
certain state in India he will be tried in Indian courts.

35
Massimilano Lattore and Others v Union of India, 2012 (2) KLD 649.
36
K.D. Gaur, Indian Penal Code (3rd ed. 2004) p.6, Universal Law Publishers.