(a) "The existence of mens rea along with commission of actus reus makes the act an offence." Explain. (10 marks) (b) What are…

(a) Mens rea and actus reus

The maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea means an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty. Liability needs an actus reus (a voluntary act or illegal omission with its prohibited result), a mens rea (intention, knowledge, recklessness or, for some offences, negligence) and their concurrence. A series of acts may be treated as one transaction (Thabo Meli v R 1954) and a continuing act satisfies concurrence (Fagan v MPC 1969).

• In Indian law: the BNS (earlier IPC) builds mens rea into definitions through words such as "voluntarily", "dishonestly", "fraudulently" and "reason to believe" (BNS s.2), and the General Exceptions (BNS ss.14-44, earlier IPC ss.76-106) negate it through mistake of fact, accident, infancy and unsoundness of mind.
• ***Nathulal v State of MP* (1966):** mens rea is essential unless the statute excludes it expressly or by necessary implication. A dealer who honestly believed his licence was pending was acquitted.
• Strict liability: public welfare statutes may exclude it. In State of Maharashtra v Mayer Hans George (1965) carrying gold in breach of an RBI notification was an offence without knowledge of it, and in R v Prince (1875) belief about age was no defence. Sherras v De Rutzen (1895) requires clear words to displace the presumption.
• Negligence: BNS s.106 (earlier IPC s.304A) punishes death by a rash or negligent act, a form of fault.

Liability ordinarily needs both a guilty act and a guilty mind, and strict liability is a narrow statutory exception.

(b) Remedies in tort other than damages

Judicial remedies:

1. Injunction: temporary (CPC Order 39) on a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury (Dalpat Kumar v Prahlad Singh 1992), perpetual (Specific Relief Act ss.37-38), for example restraining a factory from discharging effluents, mandatory (s.39), such as ordering removal of a wall blocking a right of way, and quia timet against threatened harm.
2. Specific restitution: of immovable property (SRA s.5, and summary recovery within six months under s.6) and of specific movables (ss.7-8), such as a car wrongly held by a garage.
3. Declaration of title or status (SRA s.34).
4. Account of profits in passing off, infringement or conversion.

Extra-judicial remedies: expulsion of a trespasser with reasonable force, re-entry on land, re-caption of goods, abatement of nuisance such as cutting overhanging branches (Lemmon v Webb 1895), and distress damage feasant.

Damages compensate for past harm, whereas these remedies prevent, stop or undo the wrong where money is inadequate.

(c) Acid attack: Sections 326-A and 326-B and Laxmi (2015)

Sections 326A and 326B IPC, added by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 after the 226th Law Commission Report (2009), are now BNS s.124(1) and (2). Throwing or administering acid causing permanent or partial damage, deformity or disability carries 10 years to life with a fine paid to the victim for medical expenses. Throwing or attempting to throw acid with intent carries 5 to 7 years and fine. Private defence extends to causing death against an acid attack (BNS s.38), and BNSS ss.396-397 (earlier CrPC ss.357A-357C) give compensation and free treatment.

Effectiveness: the offence is specific and gender-neutral with high minimum sentences. Yet attacks continue every year, acid remains easy to buy, trials are slow, convictions few, and compensation and rehabilitation lag.

***Laxmi v Union of India* (10 April 2015): building on its 2013 order regulating acid sales, the Court directed a minimum compensation of Rs 3 lakh, with Rs 1 lakh within 15 days, free and full treatment including reconstructive surgery by private as well as public hospitals**, a treatment certificate for the victim, strict enforcement of sale rules, and rehabilitation through Legal Services Authorities. Parivartan Kendra (2015) raised one award to Rs 10 lakh, and the RPwD Act, 2016 lists acid attack victims as a disability category.

(d) Section 7-A of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955

Section 7A (added in 1976) punishes compelling any person, on the ground of untouchability, to do scavenging, sweeping, carcass removal, flaying or removing the umbilical cord, with 3 to 6 months and a fine of Rs 100 to 500. It gives effect to Arts 17 and 23.

Strengths: it criminalised caste-based forced occupations, and courts insisted on enforcing Art 17 even against private persons (PUDR v Union of India 1982, State of Karnataka v Appa Balu Ingale 1993).

Weaknesses: the penalties are unrevised since 1976, very few cases are registered because of fear, dependence and proof of compulsion on the ground of untouchability, and the section has been displaced by the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Manual Scavengers Act, 2013. Deaths in sewers continue. Safai Karamchari Andolan (2014) ordered Rs 10 lakh compensation, and Dr Balram Singh v Union of India (2023) raised it to Rs 30 lakh.

Section 7A has been more symbolic than effective. Results depend on the stronger statutes, mechanisation and rehabilitation.

(e) Right of private defence and its limits

Since the State cannot protect everyone at all times, nothing done in private defence is an offence (BNS s.34, earlier IPC s.96). It covers the body of oneself or another and property against theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass (BNS s.35).

It is not absolute:

1. No right against a public servant acting in good faith unless there is reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, and no right where there is time to seek the protection of authorities (BNS s.37, earlier s.99).
2. Proportionality: only necessary harm is allowed. Courts do not use "golden scales", but grossly excessive force is unprotected (Darshan Singh v State of Punjab 2010).
3. Causing death only in listed cases: for the body, apprehension of death or grievous hurt, rape, kidnapping, wrongful confinement or acid attack (BNS s.38), and for property, the cases in BNS s.41.
4. Duration: the right starts with reasonable apprehension and lasts only while it lasts (BNS ss.40, 43). It is a shield, not retaliation (Yogendra Morarji 1980).
5. No right for the aggressor.
6. Exceeding the right in good faith reduces murder to culpable homicide (BNS s.101 Exception 2).

The accused need show the plea only on a preponderance of probability (Munshi Ram 1968, BSA s.108).