AUTHOR
Arundhati Nair
INTRODUCTION
Crime is an act forbidden by law . The fundamental principle of penal liability has been defined in the Latin maxim “ Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which means “ The act and intention should concur to constitute crime”. An act alone would not amount to crime, it should be accompanied by a guilty mind to constitute a crime. Thus, intention or mens rea is an important aspect of criminal law.
FACTS
In the case of Kala Singh @ Gurnam Singh ,the idea of intention was discussed by the Supreme Court. In this case the appellant and the deceased ( Shamber Singh) had a fight on the ground that the deceased has stolen the pigeon of the appellant and in the heat of passion , as a sudden spur the co -accused (Kehar Singh ) gave a blow with the rod he had in his hand on the right side of the head of the deceased , which caused his death. Thee appellant and the co accused further throw the dead body in a minor canal.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The case was first heard by the trial court and the submission made by the appellant was that the act was occurred in the sudden spur and there was no intention and was not a pre- planned act. The co -accused of offences under Sections 304 and 201 of IPC and the appellant was convicted of offences under 302/34 and 201 IPC. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life for offences under Section 302/34 and rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for offence under Section 201.An appeal was filed before the High Court and the High Court found that the act was not pre meditated one the fight was under the sudden heat of passion. The High Court also noted that all three, the accused , co -accused and the deceased had consumed liquor , the chemical expert also supported the fact with the scientific test. In the light of the inferences made by the High Court the court modified the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced rigorous imprisonment for a period of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/, on the appellant and the co -accused with a default clause that in the event of non – payment of fine , they shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.
On a further appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court of India by the appellant -accused the counsel for him submits that the act was a not premeditated one and all three of them were intoxicated and the fight was a sudden heat of passion on the ground that the deceased stole the pigeon of the appellant accused. The counsel further pleads before the court to reduce the conviction from Section 304 Part 1 of IPC to Section 304 Part II of IPC . The counsel takes the support of the case Uday Singh v. State Of UP, to support his contention , in which the conviction was reduced to Section 304 Part II of IPC. The learned counsel for the State Of Punjab contented that , already enough leniency was provided by the Honorable High Court and there are no grounds for the Supreme Court to interfere in this case.
ISSUES
The issues before the court was ;
- Whether the act of accused and co -accused a pre – meditated one or one without intention?
- Whether the punishment pronounced by the trial court be reduced on the ground of lack of intention?
DECISION
The Honorable Supreme Court after studying the facts and hearing both the sides came to the conclusion that there is a lack of intention and the act was not a predetermined one and thus the conviction was modified by the court to one under Section 304 Part II IPC. The appellant was thus sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.10,000/ and maintained the punishment under Section 201 IPC.
The Supreme Court observed that the act of accused and co – accused was upon a sudden heat of anger , and they were intoxicated at the time of the act which clearly will state about their mental ability . Relying upon these facts the Supreme Court pronounced lack of intention in the act of the accused and co-accused. When there is a lack of intention the act cannot constitute a crime. Hence the punishment pronounced was reduced.
CONCLUSION
Thus , the Honourable Supreme Court again cements the necessity of intention or guilty mind or mens rea to constitute a crime or criminal act .Mens rea states about mind of the person at the time of commission of the crime . A person with strong criminal intent would be knowing the seriousness of his act and its consequences . in this present case the accused was not fully aware of neither the seriousness nor the consequence of his act. They were intoxicated at the time of at which add up to that they will not be having a clear mental stability to think of the seriousness of their act. The supreme court has pointed out these points and once again underlined , ‘Intention or mens rea is a mandate of crime without which a crime will not be said to be fully committed.’
ENDNOTES
- Uday Singh v. State Of UP , Appeal (crl.) 10 0f 1994
- Case Analysis, SC reduces sentence by 5 yeas in a Murder Case for stealing pigeon (September 22,2021)
