For a crime to be established, the prosecution must prove the existence of all four of the

following elements:
1. A Human Being as the perpetrator.
2. Mens Rea, or a guilty mind.
3. Actus Reus, or a guilty act.
4. Injury caused to another person or society.

1. Human Being 👤
The first and most basic requirement is that the crime must be committed by a human being.
The law regulates human conduct, so criminal liability is attached to people.
This element has two important dimensions:
 Natural Person: This is a living human being. An animal cannot be held criminally
liable, though its owner can be for negligence (e.g., if their dangerous dog attacks
someone due to their carelessness).
 Juristic/Legal Person: In modern law, a company or corporation can also be held
criminally liable. Since a company has no physical body or mind, the law solves this
by attributing the actions and intent of its key decision-makers to the company itself.
This is known as the "directing mind and will" doctrine.
o Simple Example: If the Board of Directors of a pharmaceutical company
knowingly approves the sale of a contaminated drug to make a profit, the
company itself can be prosecuted for causing harm, not just the directors.
o Case Law: Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc. (2011) The Supreme
Court confirmed that a corporation can be prosecuted for crimes requiring
mens rea, like cheating. The criminal intent of the company's directors and
senior employees is imputed to the company.

2. Mens Rea (The Guilty Mind) 🧠

This refers to the mental state of the accused when they committed the act. It’s the
blameworthy intent. The BNS uses specific words to denote mens rea, which can be broken
down into different levels of culpability.
 Intention: This is the highest degree of fault. It's the conscious desire to commit the
act and achieve a specific result.
o Simple Example: A person takes a loaded gun, aims it at another person's
heart, and pulls the trigger. Their intention is to kill.
o Case Law: Jai Prakash v. State (1991) The Supreme Court clarified that
intention is different from motive. Motive is the reason for the crime (e.g.,
revenge, greed), while intention is the deliberate objective to cause a specific
 outcome. The prosecution doesn't need to prove motive, but it must prove
intention.
o State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1965) AIR 722, the accused
carried gold into India without knowing it violated import laws, but the court
held that mens rea (knowledge or intent) is presumed unless the statute
excludes it. On Mens Rea: The court held that mens rea is not an essential
ingredient for this offense. The wording of Section 23(1-A) of FERA doesn't
mention words like "knowingly," "intentionally," or "willfully," which would
indicate a need for guilty mind. Instead, it's a strict liability offense: "The very
object of the Act [FERA] would be frustrated if mens rea were read into the
section." This means liability attaches just from the prohibited act (bringing
undeclared gold), regardless of intent or knowledge. The court noted that in
socio-economic or welfare statutes (like food safety or economic regulations),
Parliament can exclude mens rea to make laws effective, especially when
public interest is at stake.
On Strict Liability: Emphasized that for offenses aimed at preventing societal
harm (e.g., smuggling affecting economy), absolute liability ensures
deterrence.

This case directly illustrates the limits and exceptions to the mens rea
element. In general criminal jurisprudence (as under the old IPC and now
BNS), mens rea is a core requirement for most crimes—meaning you need
intent, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence (e.g., BNS Section 3(26) for
"intention," Section 3(27) for "knowledge"). The maxim "actus non facit reum
nisi mens sit rea" (an act doesn't make one guilty without a guilty mind)
applies.
However, the judgment clarifies that mens rea is presumed but can be
excluded by statute, especially in:
Regulatory or welfare offenses (e.g., economic crimes like smuggling, food
adulteration).
Where proving intent is difficult, but the harm to society is high (e.g., draining
foreign reserves).

 Knowledge: This means being aware of the consequences of an act, even if you don't
specifically desire them. You know a particular result is practically certain to happen.
o Simple Example: A person demolishes an old, unstable wall next to a
crowded public pavement. They don't want to kill anyone, but they know that
the wall collapsing is highly likely to cause someone's death.
 Recklessness: This is taking an unjustified and foreseeable risk. The person knows
there's a risk of harm but decides to go ahead anyway.
 o Simple Example: A driver speeds down a narrow, busy street at 100 km/h to
get to a meeting on time. They don't intend to hit anyone, but they are
recklessly disregarding the high risk of causing a fatal accident.
 Negligence: This is the lowest level of fault. It's the failure to exercise the standard of
care that a reasonable person would in the same situation. You should have known
better. For criminal liability, the negligence must be gross and severe.
o Simple Example: An experienced electrician rewires a house but uses
substandard materials and fails to check the connections properly, leading to a
fire that causes a death. This is gross negligence.
o Case Law: Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab (2005) The Supreme Court held
that for a doctor to be held criminally liable for a patient's death, their
negligence must be of a very high degree, showing a reckless disregard for the
patient's life and safety.

3. Actus Reus (The Guilty Act) 🏃‍♂️

This is the physical component of the crime. It must be a voluntary act or a failure to act
where there is a legal duty to do so.
 A Physical Act: This is a positive action.
o Simple Example: The act of stabbing someone with a knife is the actus reus
of hurt or murder.
 An Illegal Omission: This is a failure to act when the law requires you to act.
o Simple Example: A jailor has a legal duty to provide food to a prisoner. If the
jailor deliberately withholds food to cause the prisoner's death, this omission
is the actus reus of murder.

Om Prakash v. State of Punjab (1961) AIR 1782, the husband withheld food from his wife,
causing her starvation and near-death, which was held as actus reus for attempt to murder.
This case ties directly to the element by showing that omissions can be actus reus if a duty
exists (marital duty here), extending beyond mere actions. It connects to BNS Section 3(1) by
demonstrating how failing to act voluntarily, when required, completes the physical element,
ensuring liability for passive but harmful conduct.

4. Injury 🩸
The final element is that the act must cause some form of injury, which is defined broadly
under Section 2(15) of the BNS as any harm illegally caused to a person's:
 Body: Physical harm, from a simple slap to death.
 o Simple Example: Punching someone in the face, causing a bruise. This is the
crime of 'hurt'.
 Mind: Psychological or mental harm.
o Simple Example: Threatening to kill someone, causing them severe fear and
mental distress. This is 'criminal intimidation'.
 Reputation: Harming a person's social standing.
o Simple Example: Publishing a false and malicious newspaper article stating
that a respected doctor is a fraud. This is 'defamation'.
 Property: Harming a person's belongings or financial interests.
o Simple Example: Taking someone's wallet without their permission. This is
'theft'.