KSLU Solved Question Papers
Criminal Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 4
2014 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 4 Criminal Law I 2014 Dec Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2014 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2014 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2014 Dec examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 13 questions answered
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1What is 'mens rea' ? State its significance in statutory offences.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: Part A, what mens rea is: the maxim and its two halves; the mental states the Indian Penal Code names, with their definitions, in a table (sections 24, 25, 26, 39 and the negligence of section 304A; now section 2 of the Sanhita); motive is not mens rea (Basdev); how the Code protects the innocent mind through the General Exceptions. Part B, its significance in statutory offences: what a statutory offence is; the five positions a special law can take on the mental element: (1) mental words written in, (2) silence with the presumption that mens rea is needed (Nathulal), (3) silence that excludes it, strict liability (Mayer Hans George, Kacheroo Mal), (4) a presumed mental state the accused must disprove (section 35 of the NDPS Act), (5) liability for another's act (Ravula Hariprasada Rao); the factors courts weigh; three worked examples; a short assessment; the Sanhita; a conclusion.
Part A: what mens rea is
The maxim
The maxim is actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. An act does not make a man guilty unless his mind is also guilty. So a crime has two halves. The outward act or omission is the actus reus. The state of mind that goes with it is the mens rea.
Mens rea is not moral wickedness in general. It is the particular state of mind that the definition of the offence requires. Murder needs intention or knowledge about death. Theft needs dishonesty. Causing death by negligence needs only a failure of care.
The mental states the Code uses
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 never uses the words "mens rea". It writes the required state of mind into each offence, and defines the key words in Chapter II.
| Word | Where defined | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| dishonestly | s.24 | intending wrongful gain to one or wrongful loss to another |
| fraudulently | s.25 | with intent to defraud |
| Word | Where defined | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| reason to believe | s.26 | having sufficient cause to believe a thing |
| voluntarily | s.39 | causing an effect by means one intended, or knew or had reason to believe likely to cause it |
| intentionally, knowingly | used in each offence | aiming at a result, or being aware it is likely |
| rashly or negligently | s.304A and others | running an unjustified risk, or failing in the care the law expects |
These words grade one act into different crimes. A single death may be murder, culpable homicide not amounting to murder, or causing death by negligence. Only the state of mind decides which.
Motive is not mens rea
Facts. In Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488, decided on 17 April 1956, a retired army jamadar was heavily drunk at a wedding. He shot dead a boy who would not move aside to give him a seat.
Held. The Court separated three ideas. Motive is what prompts a man to form an intention. Intention is the aim of the act. Knowledge is awareness of its consequences. A drunk man is treated as having the knowledge of a sober man. His intention is gathered from the circumstances.
Why it bears. The law looks at intention and knowledge, not at motive. A good motive does not cancel a guilty intention, and a bad motive does not create one.
How the Code protects an innocent mind
Chapter IV, the General Exceptions, excuses acts done without a guilty mind. Examples are accident in a lawful act (section 80) and the act of a child under seven (section 82). Unsoundness of mind (section 84) and mistake of fact (sections 76 and 79) are others. In each, the act happens but the mind is innocent, so there is no offence.
Part B: its significance in statutory offences
What a statutory offence is
A statutory offence here means an offence created by a law outside the Code. Food safety, customs, foreign exchange, narcotics, motor vehicles and essential commodities laws are examples. Many are drafted briefly: "whoever sells", "whoever stores", "whoever imports". They do not say whether a guilty mind is needed. So the court must decide. A special law can stand in one of five positions.
Position 1: the mental words are written in
Some sections say "knowingly", "wilfully" or "with intent to". Then the prosecution must prove that mental state, as under the Code. There is no question to decide.
Position 2: silence, and the presumption of mens rea
Facts. In Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43, decided on 22 March 1965, a grain dealer at Dhar stored 885 maunds of wheat without a licence. He had applied, paid the fee and filed his returns, and was never told his application had failed.
Held. He was acquitted. Mens rea is an essential ingredient of an offence. A statute may exclude it only expressly or by necessary implication. That implication arises only if reading it in would defeat the law's object. Calling a law welfare legislation is not enough.
Why it bears. This is the starting point for every silent statute. The guilty mind is presumed to be required.
Position 3: silence that excludes it, strict liability
Facts. In State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722, a German passenger carried gold through Bombay without declaring it. He said he did not know of the new rule requiring a declaration.
Held. By a majority, knowledge of the rule need not be proved. A law against gold smuggling would fail if the prosecution had to prove what each carrier knew.
In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal, (1976) 1 SCC 412, a trader was prosecuted for selling adulterated food. The Supreme Court did not require proof that he knew of the adulteration. The sale of the article was the gist of the offence. His protection lay in the strict rules for taking and testing samples.
Why they bear. Where public health or the economy is at stake and proof of knowledge is nearly impossible, the courts accept liability without fault.
Position 4: a mental state presumed, and the burden shifted
Some laws take a middle path. Take section 35 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Where an offence requires a culpable mental state, the court must presume it. It then lets the accused prove that he had no such state. The mental element remains part of the offence, but the burden of disproving it moves to the accused.
Position 5: liability for the act of another
Facts. In Ravula Hariprasada Rao v. The State, AIR 1951 SC 204, decided on 19 March 1951, a licensee of two petrol pumps at Guntur lived about forty miles away. His employees sold petrol without ration coupons, and without the endorsements a second clause required.
Held. For the sale without coupons he was not guilty. A person is not guilty without a guilty mind unless the statute rules it out. And a master is not, as a rule, criminally liable for his servant's acts. But his conviction under the clause that put the duty on the supplier himself was upheld.
Why it bears. The wording of each provision decides. One clause in the same order needed a guilty mind, and the other did not.
The factors courts weigh
From these cases, a court asking whether a silent statute excludes mens rea looks at:
- The words, and whether other sections of the same law use mental words, which suggests the silence is deliberate;
- The object, and whether it would be defeated by requiring proof of a guilty mind;
- The subject, such as public health, safety or the economy, where many are put at risk;
- The penalty, since a heavy sentence points towards requiring mens rea, and a light fine away from it;
- Whether care could prevent the harm, since strict liability makes sense only if it pushes people to take precautions.
Three worked examples
- The licence that never came. A dealer stores sugar, honestly believing his licence has been granted. Like Nathulal, the law's object is not defeated by requiring a guilty mind. He is not guilty.
- The adulterated oil. A grocer sells mustard oil that tests as adulterated. He did not know. Following Kacheroo Mal, the sale is enough, provided the sampling rules were obeyed.
- The bag of heroin. Drugs are found in a car's boot. Once possession is proved, section 35 presumes that the driver knew. He must prove that he did not.
A short assessment
Mens rea keeps the criminal law fair, because punishment follows blame. Strict liability departs from that, but only in narrow fields where the public need is great and the penalty often light. The courts guard the line by presuming mens rea first and excluding it only where the law would otherwise fail.
Under the Sanhita
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 keeps the Code's method. It writes the mental element into each offence. "Dishonestly" is now section 2(7), "fraudulently" section 2(9), "reason to believe" section 2(29) and "voluntarily" section 2(33). The General Exceptions are now sections 14 to 44. The rules for special laws come from the cases and are unchanged.
Conclusion. Mens rea is the guilty mind that each offence requires, expressed in the Code through words such as dishonestly, fraudulently, voluntarily and knowingly. Motive is not part of it, as Basdev explains. In statutory offences, a guilty mind is presumed to be needed (Nathulal). It is excluded only where the law's object would otherwise fail, as in Mayer Hans George and Kacheroo Mal. Some laws presume the mental state and let the accused disprove it. Ravula Hariprasada Rao shows that a master is not liable for his servant without fault unless the words of the law say so.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 4 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.