Whether accused can be convicted for offence of abetment of suicide if prosecution has failed to prove mensrea for offence?

The pith and purport of Section 306 IPC has since been
enunciated by this Court in Randhir Singh vs. State of Punjab
(2004)13 SCC 129, and the relevant excerpts therefrom are set out
hereunder.
“12. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a
thing. In cases of conspiracy also it would involve that
mental process of entering into conspiracy for the doing
of that thing. More active role which can be described as
instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required before
a person can be said to be abetting the commission of
offence under Section 306 IPC.
13. In State of W.B. Vs. Orilal Jaiswal (1994) 1 SCC 73,
this Court has observed that the courts should be
extremely careful in assessing the facts and
circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced
in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the
cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced
her to end the life by committing suicide. If it
transpires to the court that a victim committing
suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance,
discord and differences in domestic life quite common
to the society to which the victim belonged and such
petulance, discord and differences were not expected to
induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given
society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court
should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the
accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should
be found guilty.”
29. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier
pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal (supra) that courts have to be
extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each
case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the
victim and that the same had induced the person to end his/her life
by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing
suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord
and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to
which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to
induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step,
the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty.
The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State
of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707.
30. That the intention of the legislature is that in order to convict a
person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit an offence and that there ought to be an active or direct act
leading the deceased to commit suicide, being left with no option,
had been propounded by this Court in S.S. Chheena vs. Vijay
Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190.
31. In Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 10
SCC 48, this Court, with reference to Section 113A of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, while observing that the criminal law
amendment bringing forth this provision was necessitated to meet
the social challenge of saving the married woman from being
ill-treated or forcing to commit suicide by the husband or his
relatives demanding dowry, it was underlined that the burden of
proving the preconditions permitting the presumption as ingrained
therein, squarely and singularly lay on the prosecution. That the
prosecution as well has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that
the deceased had committed suicide on being abetted by the person
charged under Section 306 IPC, was emphasised.
 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1135 OF 2016
(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P (CRIMINAL) NO. 8764 OF 2016)
GURCHARAN SINGH
V
STATE OF PUNJAB 
Dated:DECEMBER 2, 2016.
Citation: (2017) 1 SCC 433

Print Page

When offence of S 504 of IPC is not made out?

Section 504 of the IPC under which cognizance has been
taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate reads thus :-
“504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of the peace —
Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives
provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to
be likely that such provocation will cause him to
break the public peace, or to commit any other
offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both.”

11. From a reading of Section 504 of the IPC, it would be
clear that the essential ingredients of the offence are as under :
(1) That the accused insulted some person;
(2) That he did so intentionally;
(3) That he thereby gave provocation to that person;
(4) That he intended, or knew that it was likely that such
provocation would cause that person to break the
peace or to commit any other offence.
12. Mere abuse unaccompanied by an intention to cause
breach of peace or knowledge that breach of peace is likely that such
provocation would cause that person to break the peace or to commit
any other offence does not come within the offence as defined under
Section 504 of the IPC. A vague allegation that the accused abused
the opposite party in filthy language would not be sufficient to attract
the ingredients of Section 504 of the IPC. In order to attract the
ingredients of the offence under Section 504 of the IPC, it would be
necessary that actual words used or supposed to have been used
should be mentioned in the complaint/written report otherwise it
would be extremely difficult for the court to decide whether or not the
words used amounted to intentional insult. Also, the words used
which amounted to intentional insult should be such that it intended
to break the peace.
13. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has
rightly submitted that no offence under Section 504 of the IPC is
made out as the informant has not given out the actual words of abuse
in his written report and the informant has nowhere disclosed that the
insulting words used by the accused had provoked him or that the
accused intended or knew that the provocation was likely to cause the
informant either to break the peace or to commit an offence.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.33181 of 2013

Shiv Sundar Bharti 
V
 State Of Bihar

CORAM: MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

Date: 04-08-2016
Citation:2016 CRLJ4761 Patna

Print Page

When filing of forged and fabricated document amounts to contempt of court?

 A reference to standard textbooks on contempt, to wit, C.J. Miller's Contempt of Court; Oswald's Contempt of Court; and Anthony Arlidge & David Eady's The Law of Contempt would amply bear what has been stated above; and that if a forged and fabricated document is filed, the same may amount to interference with the administration of justice. Of course, for the act to take this colour there is required to be an element of deceit or the knowledge of the statement being forged or fabricated. This is what finds place at pages 399 to 401 (2nd Edn.); page 62 (1993 Reprint); and pages 186 and 188 (1982 Edn.) respectively of the aforesaid treatises.

Supreme Court of India

Chandra Shashi vs Anil Kumar Verma on 14 November, 1994

Equivalent citations: 1995 SCC (1) 421, JT 1994 (7) 459

BENCH:
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
KULDIP SINGH (J)

Print Page

Whether bringing second wife amounts to cruelty on first wife within meaning of S 498A of IPC?

There is one more allegation which, according to prosecution,
is quite serious and which, if proved, would require consideration from
this Court for evaluating its impact on the conduct of the complainant.
This allegation is about bringing a second wife to his house by respondent
No.1.   I must say it here that it is not every type of misconduct that has
been made punishable under section 498­A of I.P.C.   Cruelty has been
defined in section 498­A to mean any willful conduct of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger   to   life,   limb   or   physical   or   mental   health   of   the   woman   or
harassment of the woman made with a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security.  So, it is clear that only those acts committed willfully and which
are in the nature of degrading treatment which qualify to be termed as
cruelty in law.   In other words, cruelty is a conduct designed to produce
definite result in relation to physical or mental condition of a woman.   In
order that the conduct is called willful, it must have been such as could be
said to be indulged in by the accused with an intention to cause or with
the   knowledge   that   it   is   likely   to   cause   degrading   or   humiliating   or
injurious effect on the mind or conduct of the woman.  It involves acts the
result of which causes hurt and often­times agony to the opposite party, be
it mental or physical, which in turn has further damaging consequences,
the most serious of which is an ultimate suicide, as held in the case of

Madhuri Mukund Chitnis  v.  Mukund Martand Chitnis, 1992 CRI.L.J.
111.    Thus, the condemned act called cruelty must be accompanied by
mens rea.   Having said so, it has to be seen whether the allegation that
the accused No.1 had brought one stranger lady to his house at Pune and
announced not only to the complainant but also to her father and uncle
that the stranger was his second wife was reasonably established or not.
Even if this allegation is proved, the matter would not end there, as it
cannot be presumed in every case that such conduct of husband would
create such an adverse  impact on the mind of the wife as is sufficient to
drive her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself and hence a
willful   conduct.     There   are   instances   where   a   second   wife   has   been
accepted by first wife willingly or unwillingly but surely without losing
balance of mind by causing any injury to herself.   So all depends on the
facts and circumstances of each case.    The evidence as regards the said
allegation,   therefore,   needs   to  be  assessed   in   the   light   of   the   law   so
discussed.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  571  OF 2001

State of Maharashtra. V/s.  Sanjiv Bhimrao Kamble.

CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED  : 28th October 2015.
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)2058

Print Page

When prosecution for abetment to commit suicide is liable to be quashed?

The Apex Court observed thus:

“27. This Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605 had an occasion to deal with
this aspect of abetment. The Court dealt with the dictionary
meaning of the words "instigation" and "goading". The Court
opined that there should be intention to provoke, incite or
encourage the doing of an act by the latter. Each person's
suitability pattern is different from the other. Each person has
his own idea of self esteem and self respect. Therefore, it is
impossible to lay down any straitjacket formula in dealing with
such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own
facts and circumstances.
28. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.
Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or
aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The
intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by
this Court is clear that in order to convict a person under
Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the
deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must
have been intended to push the deceased into such a position
that he committed suicide. 
17. The Supreme Court in the case of Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State
of A.P. reported in 2010 All MR (Cri) 615 : AIR 2010 SC 327 held that mens
rea to commit the offence, must be present for proving the offence of abetment
of suicide. The Supreme Court held as under:
“20. Abetment involves a mental process of instigation a
person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a
thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to
instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot
be sustained.
The Supreme Court also held that it is not possible to lay down any
formula in dealing with such cases.”
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2622 OF 2012
Raviraj Ramchandra Deshpande ...Petitioner
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

 CORAM:- REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
 DATED :- JUNE 18, 2014
Citation;2016 ALLMR(CRI)1420

Print Page

What is difference between 'intention' and 'knowledge' in Murder trial?

The ‘intention’
and ‘knowledge’ of the accused are subjective and invisible states
of mind and their existence has to be gathered from the
circumstances, such as the weapon used, the ferocity of attack,
multiplicity of injuries and all other surrounding circumstances.
The framers of the Code designedly used the words ‘intention’ and
‘knowledge’ and it is accepted that the knowledge of the
consequences which may result in doing an act is not the same
thing as the intention that such consequences should ensue.
Firstly, when an act is done by a person, it is presumed that he
must have been aware that certain specified harmful consequences
would or could follow. But that knowledge is bare awareness and
not the same thing as intention that such consequences should
ensue. As compared to ‘knowledge’, ‘intention’ requires something
more than the mere foresight of the consequences, namely the
purposeful doing of a thing to achieve a particular end.”
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 46 OF 2016

NANKAUNOO V STATE OF U.P.

Citation;(2016) 3 SCC 317
R. BANUMATHI, J.

Print Page

Whether offence of rape can be distinguished on the basis of the intention of accused?

 In view of the increasing offences against the women especially of rape, the legislature and judiciary both found it obligatory to deal these offences with severe punishment and women can be protected if the laws are made rigorous. Therefore, report of Justice Verma Committee was accepted and necessary and significant amendments were made in these two sections. A wrong doer is to be punished, guilty is to be convicted.

However, at the stage of bail, the Court has to consider prima facie under what circumstances the offence is committed by the accused. In the Criminal law, the Court cannot ignore the intention or motive behind the act and that is an important factor in the commission of offence so also to decide the quantum of sentence at the end of trial, so in the case of bail.

10. The offence of rape can be distinguished on the basis of the intention of the accused. There are incidents of rapes committed by gang like the case of Nirbhaya or Maya Thagi or Mathura which cannot be forgotten by Indian Society. So also rape committed in a savage manner or repeatedly by a single accused. There are some instances of rape which take place as a man wants to satisfy his lust and animal within him overpowers his reason. There are instances of rape where a man and a woman both are in love with each other and get involved into sexual relationship due to either physical or psychological need and in such type of rape, there is no violence which exists in other types of rape.

11. Today teenagers are exposed to more sex related issues and lot of material is also available to them to know the sexual relationship between a man and a woman. Because of their impressionable age, girls and boys both may tend to get provoked and there can be a curious and very compelling demand of the body to get into such kind of relationship.

Bombay High Court

Sunil Mahadev Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 August, 2015

Bench: Mridula Bhatkar

Citation;2016 CRLJ(NOC)36 Bom

DATE : AUGUST 3, 2015 

Print Page

Whether prosecution has to prove wilful conduct and mensrea for proving offence U/S 498A of IPC?

Smt. Sirpurkar, the learned counsel for the the appellants/accused further submitted that considering the facts and circumstances merely alleging that she has brought less amount of dowry as also she is not cooking properly will not amount to cruelty and thereby there seems no mens-rea of the appellants\accused that deceased Sunita should commit suicide.

The prosecution has to prove wilful conduct and mens-rea which is a necessary ingredient. A reliance has been placed on a case of Veerulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1988 (3) Crimes 549 (Andhra Pradesh High Court) in which at para No. 12, it is observed that;

"Adverting to the standard of proof for 'cruelty' in civil and criminal law, it is to be noted that 'cruelty' is one of the grounds for grant of relief of 'judicial separation' or 'divorce' under the Hindu Marriage Act. The word cruelty as such is not defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. However, Courts have interpreted it from time to time as of two categories, viz. physical cruelty and mental cruelty. In Ruselve. Rusel cruelty was defined as the conduct of such a character to have caused danger to life, limb or health, body or mental, or to have given rise to a reasonable apprehension of such danger. Therefore, the conduct need not practically result in the danger and it is enough if it gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. Human relations are so diverse that it is rather difficult to lay down with finality the classes of acts that constitute cruelty. In one case commission of a certain act may result in cruelty while in another non-commission of that act may cause cruelty. Again cruelty may be direct or indirect. At one time it may be intended with an objective while on another occasion it may be quite unintended and with no objective. Thus, as has been the majority view in Gollins. v. Gollins intention on the part of one spouse to injure the other is not a necessary element of cruelty. Where two spouses are of normal physical and mental health and the conduct of the respondent spouse so considered is so bad that the other should not be called on to endure it, cruelty is established; it does not then matter what the respondent's state of mind was, for it is immaterial whether the respondent's conduct was aimed at the other spouse or due to unwarranted indifference attributable, perhaps to selfishness or laziness. Lored Pearce in Gollins. v. Gollins supra said :

In the light of the vital fact the Court has then to decide whether the sum total of the reprehensible conduct was cruel. That depends on whether the cumulative conduct was sufficiently weighty to say that from a reasonable person's point of view, after a consideration of any excuses which the respondent might have in the circumstances, the conduct is such that the petitioner ought not to be called on to endure it."

Referring various cases in para No. 15 it is further observed that;

"On an analysis of the cases noted supra, it can be called out that (i) the standard of proof of cruelty are higher in decree in criminal law than in civil law under the matrimonial causes, (ii) the intention or mens are on the part of one spouse to injure the other is not a necessary element of cruelty in civil law for matrimonial causes while it is an essential element in criminal law, (iii) it is enough if cruelty is proved by preponderance of probabilities in civil law while in criminal trials the conduct of cruelty has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, (iv) it is immaterial in civil law whether the respondent's conduct was aimed at the other spouse or due unwarranted indifference attributable, perhaps to selfishness or laziness, while it is very much material in criminal proceedings, and (v) for the relief of matrimonial causes in civil law the conduct of the spouse need not necessarily result in danger of life, limb or health, but a reasonable apprehension of such a danager is enough, whereas Section 498A, IPC contemplates such a conduct besides being wilful to result in the likelihood of driving the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health."

The term 'wiflful misconduct' is discussed in para 25 which is as follows :

"The term wilful misconduct was the subject matter of interpretation in Lewis v. Great Western Rly. Co. It is held :

wilful misconduct means misconduct to which the will is a party something opposed to accident or negligence ..... wilful misconduct must be that the person guilty of it should know that mischief will result from it.

Thus, the word, 'wiflful' in the term 'wilful conduct' excludes a happening due to accident or inadvertance while taking with in its sold an act which is deliberate or intentional. Accordingly to constitute 'wilful conduct' it should necessarily involve in itself an intention to do the act, a deliberate attitude or that the mind of the person doing the act should go along with that act."

Bombay High Court

Punjab Sakharam Raut And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 March, 1995

Equivalent citations: 1995 CriLJ 4021

Bench: B Wahane

Print Page

Issue of false certificate -when offence U/S 420 of IPC is not made out?

Criminal - Conviction - Challenge thereto - Sections 177 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Present appeal filed against order whereby Appellant was convicted for offences of cheating and furnishing false information - Whether conviction and sentence of Appellant under Sections 420 and 177 of Code was sustainable - Held, Appellant being Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat issued false certificate in favour of Co-Accused that he did not own any land except land which he made fit for cultivation - Appellant furnished information which he knew to be false - Therefore, ingredients of Section 177 of Code were proved - However, there was no evidence to show that there was such fraudulent dishonest intention on part of Appellant in issuing certificate - Issuance of false certificate could not be said to be with dishonest intention to make wrongful gain for himself - Therefore, conviction of Appellant under Section 420 of Code could not be sustained and same was set aside - Appeal disposed of. 


SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(T.S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.)
BISHAN DAS

VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.
Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1837 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 2331/2014)-Decided on 26-8-2014.
Citation;2015CriLJ281, 2014(4)Crimes181(SC),2015 ALLSCR861

Print Page

Whether accused can be prosecuted on the ground that deceased died due to high blood pressure due to abuses given by them?

               When the deceased died naturally, the applicants 
can not be prosecuted on the specious allegations that due to 
the abuses which they had used, the blood pressure of the 
deceased shoot up.  There is no evidence available on record 

to show that the present applicants were knowing that the 
deceased was suffering from blood pressure.  Therefore, it is 
absolutely clear that there is no  mens rea  on the part of the 
present applicants.                                                                    
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY   
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
      
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 221 OF 2014
Khandu Dhondibhau Khodade

V E R S U S

The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J.
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 12th JANUARY, 2015
Citation;2015ALLMR(CRI)1402

Print Page

Principles of criminal liability

Characteristics of a crime

• Harm
• Brought about by Human Conduct
• Sovereign state desires to prevent it
• Measure for prevention includes threat of Punishment
• Special proceedings employed to decide whether the accused has caused the harm and inflicting punishment

The place of Criminal Law in Criminal Science

Three branches of Criminal Science:

• Criminology: It deals with the causes of Crime – both Biological and Social
• Criminal Policy: Studies the measures to limit the harmful conduct, Takes measures by setting up social organizations to prevent harmful activities and lays down the principles by which harms are classed as crimes and how criminals are to be treated
• Criminal law: What conduct is considered as tort and what is Crime, Prescribes the punishment. It is an instrument used to implement the Criminal policy

Principles of criminal liability

Print Page

Whether seeking Divorce on ground that wife is suffering from cancer amounts to cruelty attracting S 498A of IPC?

 It has been held by this Court in C. Veerudu v. State of A.P. (1988) 2 Andh LT 171 : 1989 Cri LJ NOC 52 that even in respect of the offence under Section 498-A, IPC, the necessary mens rea is required, and it cannot be said by any stretch of imaginaiton that the ground mentioned in the Divorce petition that the wife was suffering from Cancer, if ultimately considered to be a cruelty for a moment, the necessary mens rea is lacking, which is necessary ingredient, so as to bring home the offence under Section 498-A, IPC. This approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is totally wrong and has been oblivious of the very provisions of Section 498-A, IPC, and the explanation appended to the said section. The word 'Cruelty' has been sought to be illustrated and thus may be extracted hereunder for brevity and better understanding of the matter and also for appreciation of the points germane for consideration :-

Section 498-A IPC

Explanation : For the purpose of this Section "Cruelty" means :-

(a) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

It is obvious from the perusal of the explanation given under Section 498-A, IPC that cruelty means a wilful conduct of such a nature and of such a magnitude so as to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life or limb or health of the woman. Seeking divorce on the ground that she was suffering from virulent disease like Cancer, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that it would lead to such a situation where P.W. 1 would prepare to commit suicide. The explanation further says that the harassment of woman shall be with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. This has to be considered with reference to the legal principles enunciated by this Court in the judgment referred to (1989 Cri LJ NOC 52) (supra) of this Court that the element of mens rea shall be there. After having considered the explanation appended to Section 498-A, IPC, it is manifest that the finding of the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge that the grounds mentioned by the revision petitioner in seeking divorce which turned out to be baseless by themselves amounts to cruelty are not well founded and cannot be countenanced.


Andhra High Court

Ch. Narender Reddy vs State Of A.P. on 16 June, 2000

Equivalent citations: 2000 (2) ALD Cri 408,

 2000 (2) ALD Cri 821

Print Page

Basic ingredient of offence punishable u/s 498A of IPC

1989 CRI. L.J. NOC 52 (ANDH.PRA.) 

BHASKAR RAO,J.

C. Veerudu and another, Appellants and State of Andhra Pradesh, Respondent.

Criminal Appeal No.756 of 1987, D/- 10-6-1988.

(A) Penal Code (1860), S.498-A--'Mens rea' Is an essential Ingredients of the offence.  

The sole constituent of offence, under S. 498-A is 'cruelty' Which mean 'wilful conduct'.  The word wilful contemplates obstinate and deliberate behaviour on the part of the offender for it to amount to cruelty.  Thus 'Mens rea' is an essential ingredient of the offence.  

(B) Penal Code (1860), S. 498-A--'Cruelty'-- Standard of proof required to constitute--Whether same under Civil and Criminal Law.

Print Page

Basic ingredients of offence punishable under s. 498A IPC

"The basic purport of the statutory provision in Sec. 498A is to avoid `cruelty' which stands defined by attributing a specific statutory meaning attached thereto as noticed hereinbefore. Two specific instances have been taken note of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word `cruelty' as is expressed by the legislature : Whereas explanation (a) involved three specific situations viz. (i) to drive the woman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or (iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental and physical and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity. In explanation (b) there is absence of physical injury but the legislature thought it fit to include only coercive harassment which obviously as the legislature intent expressed is equally heinous to snatch the physical injury; whereas one is patent, the other one is latent but equally serious in terms of the provisions of the statute since the same would also embrace the attributes of `cruelty' in terms of sec. 498A".

Bombay High Court
Ankush vs State Of Maharashtra on 10 August, 2012

  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 216 OF 2000

on 10 August, 2012

Bench: T.V. Nalawade

Citation: 2012ALLMR(Cri)3126, 2014 (1) ALT (Crl.) 24 (A.P.), 2012BomCR(Cri)259, 2013(1)Crimes118, 2013(1)Crimes118(Bom.), I(2013)DMC490

Print Page

Good legal article on Mental Element Of Crime (Mensrea)

One of the main characteristic of our legal system is that the individual's liability to punishment for crimes depends, among other things, on certain mental conditions. The liability of conviction of an individual depends not only on his having done some outward acts which the law forbids, but on his having done them in a certain frame of mind or with a certain will.

Mens rea means a mental state, in which a person deliberately violates a law. Thus mens rea means intention to do the prohibited act

These are known as mental elements in criminal liability. Therefore an act in order to be a crime must be committed with a guilty mind,

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, is a well know principle of natural justice meaning no person could be punished in a proceeding of criminal nature unless it can be shown that he had a guilty mind.

Print Page