Case Law Topics In Criminal Law
1. Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)
Mens rea is the mental element required to constitute a crime. Most crimes require both actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea.
Case 1: R v. Prince (1875)
The accused took a 14-year-old girl believing she was above 16.
The law made it an offence to take a girl under 16 out of the possession of her father.
He argued lack of mens rea because he genuinely believed she was older.
Court held: His mistaken belief was not a defence because the protection of minors is a strict-liability concern.
Principle: In some crimes, mens rea is not required when the statute imposes strict liability.
Case 2: State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1965)
A person unknowingly violated a law that changed while he was in flight.
Supreme Court held: Mens rea is not essential for statutory offences relating to economic or customs regulations.
Principle: Mens rea may be excluded where necessary for public welfare.
2. Actus Reus (Guilty Act)
Actus reus refers to the external component of the crime—action, omission, or state of affairs.
Case 3: Robinson v. California (1962)
A law punished a person simply for being a drug addict (a condition).
U.S. Supreme Court held it unconstitutional: punishment requires voluntary act, not merely a status.
Principle: Actus reus must involve voluntary conduct.
Case 4: Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1973)
The accused was convicted based on weak circumstantial evidence.
Supreme Court held that suspicion cannot substitute for proof.
Actus reus must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Principle: Failure to prove actus reus requires acquittal.
3. Causation
Causation connects the accused’s act to the harmful consequence.
Case 5: R v. White (1910)
The son poisoned his mother’s drink intending to kill her.
She died of a heart attack before drinking enough poison.
Court held: He was not guilty of murder because his act did not cause her death.
However, he was guilty of attempt to murder.
Principle: The prosecution must show the accused’s act was the factual and legal cause of death.
Case 6: R v. Smith (1959)
A soldier stabbed another soldier; the victim received negligent treatment.
Despite poor medical care, the stab wound remained the operating and substantial cause of death.
Principle: Original injury remains a legal cause unless it becomes insignificant.
4. Intention vs. Knowledge (IPC Sections 299–300)
Indian criminal law distinguishes between intention (aim or purpose) and knowledge (awareness of likely consequences).
Case 7: Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (1958)
Accused stabbed the victim with a spear in the abdomen.
The issue: Did he intend to cause that particular injury?
Court held: To prove murder under Section 300 “thirdly,” prosecution must show—
Bodily injury is present.
Injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
The accused intended to inflict that injury, not necessarily death.
Principle: Specific intent to cause a particular injury is key for murder.
5. Common Intention (IPC Section 34)
When several people commit an offence with a shared intention, each is liable as if he alone committed it.
Case 8: Kripal Singh v. State of U.P. (1954)
Multiple accused attacked the victim; only one caused the fatal blow.
Court held: When intention to commit the crime is shared, all are liable for murder.
Principle: Common intention develops from pre-arranged planning or can be formed on the spot.
Case 9: Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad (1955)
Accused persons attacked the victim but lacked proof of a shared plan.
Court held Section 34 cannot apply without evidence of common intention.
Principle: Mere presence at the crime scene is not enough; must show a meeting of minds.
6. Right of Private Defence (IPC Sections 96–106)
Case 10: K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961)
Naval officer Nanavati killed his wife’s lover.
Claimed he acted in a heat of passion and out of self-defence.
Supreme Court rejected his self-defence claim:
There was time to cool down.
He armed himself and went to confront the victim.
Principle: Self-defence cannot be claimed if the danger is not imminent or if the accused is the aggressor.
Case 11: Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010)
Supreme Court clarified self-defence doctrine:
No need to weigh the force used “in golden scales.”
But force must not be excessive.
Principle: A person has the right to defend themselves, others, or property, but only against real and immediate danger.
7. Criminal Conspiracy (IPC Section 120A/120B)
Case 12: State v. Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case, 1999)
Accused involved in a broad conspiracy that led to assassination.
Court held:
Direct participation is not required.
Agreement to commit an illegal act is sufficient.
Principle: The offence is complete the moment two or more persons agree to commit an illegal act.
8. Insanity Defence (IPC Section 84)
Case 13: Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat (1964)
Accused claimed insanity after killing his wife.
Court held:
Burden is on the accused to prove insanity, but only to the extent of creating reasonable doubt.
Principle: Unsoundness of mind must be proven at the time of the act.
RELATED Blog
comments