Supreme Court on 'Mens Rea' and its Importance in Criminal Jurisprudence

 

INTRODUCTION 

 

Today, I will talk about the case of Bharath Booshan Aggarwal v. State of Kerala, 2021 SCC OnLine 881, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the importance of mens rea in establishing the guilt of an accused.

 

After listening to this show, the audience would know about the meaning of mens rea, its role in establishing commission of an offence and the situations where mens rea may not be relevant.

 

MEANING OF ‘MENS REA’ 

 

Now, before adverting any further, it would be apposite to understand the meaning of mens rea. Mens rea is a Latin term that literally means a “guilty mind”. Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition, defines mens rea as “the state of mind that the prosecution, to secure a conviction, must prove that a defendant had when committing a crime.” It further states that “mens rea is the second of the two essential elements of every crime at common law, the other being actus reus.”

 

Thus, traditionally speaking, a crime has two elements, actus reus and mens rea. These elements are required to be established for securing a conviction. Actus reus simply means the action that is involved in a crime. In the same breath, Kenny’s Outlines of Criminal Law, 16^th Edition, states that “there are only two states of mind which constitute mens rea, and they are intention and recklessness.

 

Therefore, mens rea could be either when there is intention or there is recklessness, on part of the accused. This differentiation is important to understand as intention could be gathered by ascertaining whether the accused had knowledge about the commission of crime or had cogent reasons to believe that the concerned crime would get committed. On the other hand, mens rea could also arise out of recklessness. Recklessness simply means a brash, brazen or negligent mindset that has led to commission of a crime. Hence, both active knowledge and passive knowledge are covered with the ambit of mens rea.

 

The facts of the case are not necessary for the purposes of this show and hence, the same are not being discussed here.

 

QUESTION INVOLVED 

 

In the present case, the Court discussed that whether an offence can be said to have been committed without the necessary mens rea? In order to understand answer to this question, let us go through the pertinent observations by the Court.

 

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT 

 

Firstly, the Court observed that “generally, there is a presumption that mens rea is an essential ingredient in every offence. Yet, that presumption can be displaced either by the phraseology of the law creating the offence or by the subject matter with which it deals; both must be considered.”

 

Secondly, the Court cited the case of Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43, wherein following important points were laid down: -

 

a. “Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence. Doubtless a statute may exclude the element of mens rea, but it is a sound rule of construction… to construe a statutory provision creating an offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excluded mens rea.”

 

b. “The mere fact that the object of the statute is to promote welfare activities or to eradicate a grave social evil is by itself not decisive of the question whether the element of guilty mind is excluded from the ingredients of an offence.”

 

c. “Mens rea by necessary implication may be excluded from a statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of the statute would otherwise be defeated.”

 

d. “The nature of the mens rea that would be implied in a statute creating an offence depends on the object of the Act and the provisions thereof.”

 

Thirdly, the Court also cited the case of Raghunath Singh v. State of M.P., 967 JLJ 234 (SC), wherein the use of the word “know” in a legal provision and relationship of mens rea with knowledge, was discussed as follows: -    

 

a. Words such as ‘knowing’ or ‘knowingly’ are used “to indicate that knowledge as such must be proved either by positive evidence or circumstantially before mens rea can be established.”

 

b. The expression ‘reason to believe’ is also used in various penal provisions. According to the Court, the words ‘knowing’ or ‘knowingly’ have a more forceful connotation than the words ‘has reason to believe’ “because they insist on a greater degree of certitude in the mind of the person who is said to know or to do the act knowingly.”

 

c. “It is not enough if the evidence establishes that the person has reason to suspect or even to believe that a particular state of affairs existed.” When words ‘has reason to believe’ are used, “something more than suspicion or reason for belief is required” and existence of knowledge of commission of crime may become imperative in such cases.

 

Those were the observations by the Court. So, what are my concluding remarks?

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 

 

In conclusion, following important points emerge: -

 

a. Mens rea means the guilty mind required to be proved by the prosecution to secure conviction.

b. Intention as well as recklessness, both are included within the ambit of mens rea.

c. Presumption that mens rea is an essential ingredient of every offence is the rule.

d. However, such presumption could be displaced when the concerned law speaks otherwise, either expressly or by necessary implication.

e. Mens rea could be excluded by necessary implication only where it is obvious that the legislative intent would be defeated if mens rea is considered.

f. The words ‘knowing’ or ‘knowingly’ have a more forceful connotation than the words ‘has reason to believe’. And

g. When the words ‘has reason to believe’ are used, then mere suspicion or reason for belief would not be sufficient to secure a conviction.

 

Thus, I hope that the nature, meaning and the purport of the term mens rea is clear by now.