KSLU Solved Question Papers
Criminal Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 4
2017 Jun Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 4 Criminal Law I 2017 Jun 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 2017 Jun examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2017 Jun examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2017 Jun 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.
Q1Discuss the maxim "Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" with suitable case law.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the maxim word by word and the rule it states; its two halves and the requirement that they meet; how the Indian Penal Code gives effect to it without stating it (mental words in each offence, the General Exceptions; now the same in the Sanhita); the maxim tested through decided cases, one point each: an act without a guilty mind (Ram Bahadur Thapa); a guilty mind without enough of an act (Abhayanand Mishra); the two joined in time (Fagan); the mind the offence names, not any bad mind (Basdev, Dr. Vimla); a mind that cannot know (Ratan Lal); carelessness as a guilty mind (Jacob Mathew); statutes: the presumption (Nathulal) and its exclusion (Kacheroo Mal, R. v. Prince); the guilty mind is personal (Ravula Hariprasada Rao); a table of the cases; an assessment; a conclusion.
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". It states the basic rule of criminal liability. Two things are needed for a crime:
- Actus reus, the guilty act: conduct, or an illegal omission, together with any result and circumstances the offence requires;
- Mens rea, the guilty mind: the state of mind the offence requires, such as intention, knowledge, dishonesty or rashness.
The two must also coincide. The guilty mind must go with the guilty act.
How the Code applies the maxim
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 never states the maxim. It builds it in two ways. First, nearly every offence names its mental element: "intentionally", "knowingly", "dishonestly", "fraudulently", "voluntarily", "rashly or negligently". Secondly, Chapter IV, the General Exceptions, excuses acts done without a guilty mind: mistake of fact, accident, infancy, insanity and involuntary intoxication. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 keeps both methods, with the General Exceptions in sections 14 to 44.
The maxim tested through the cases
1. An act without a guilty mind is no crime. In State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa, AIR 1960 Ori 161, decided on 9 November 1959, a Nepali servant new to the area went out at midnight to see ghosts said to haunt an old aerodrome. Seeing figures round a flickering lantern, and told they were ghosts, he struck out with his khukri. They were village women gathering flowers, and one died. The Orissa High Court acquitted him under section 79. He honestly believed he was attacking ghosts, and given his background he had not failed in due care. The act was done, but the mind was innocent.
2. A guilty mind without enough of an act is no crime. A bare intention is not punished, and most preparation is not either. The act must go far enough. In Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1698, decided on 24 April 1961, a man sent Patna University false claims and forged certificates to sit its M.A. examination. The Court held that once preparation is over and the accused does an act towards the offence, he attempts it. He was guilty of attempting to cheat. The line between preparation and attempt is where the act becomes enough.
3. The act and the mind must coincide. In Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439, a driver accidentally stopped his car on a constable's foot. When asked to move, he refused for a while. The first moment was an accident with no guilty mind. But the car resting on the foot was a continuing act, and once he chose to keep it there, his intent joined the act. His conviction was upheld.
4. The mind must be the one the offence names. A bad mind in general is not enough.
- In Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488, decided on 17 April 1956, a drunk man at a wedding shot dead a boy who would not move from a seat. The Court separated motive, intention and knowledge. A drunk man is fixed with a sober man's knowledge, but his intention must be proved from the circumstances.
- In Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1572, decided on 29 November 1962, a mother signed insurance papers in her infant daughter's name. She had deceived the insurer, but gained nothing she was not entitled to and caused it no loss. So she did not act "fraudulently", and her forgery conviction was set aside.
5. A mind that cannot know is not guilty. In Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1971 SC 778, decided on 17 December 1970, a mentally ill villager set fire to a neighbour's grass. He stood silently by the fire and had no motive. Doctors found him of unsound mind. He was acquitted under section 84, since he could not know what he was doing was wrong.
6. Carelessness can be a guilty mind, but only gross carelessness. In Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, AIR 2005 SC 3180, decided on 5 August 2005, a patient died when his oxygen cylinder was found empty, and a doctor was prosecuted. The Supreme Court held that criminal negligence must be gross, of a very high degree. Negligence enough for damages is not enough for a crime.
7. Statutes: the presumption and its exclusion. In Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43, decided on 22 March 1965, a grain dealer stored wheat without a licence, honestly believing his licence would issue. He was acquitted. Mens rea is presumed in a statutory offence unless the statute excludes it expressly or by necessary implication. But in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Kacheroo Mal, (1976) 1 SCC 412, the Court required no proof that a trader knew his food was adulterated. In a public health law, the sale was the gist of the offence. The English case R. v. Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154 is the classic exclusion. A man who took a girl of fourteen from her father was convicted, though he honestly and reasonably believed her over sixteen.
8. The guilty mind is personal. In Ravula Hariprasada Rao v. The State, AIR 1951 SC 204, decided on 19 March 1951, a petrol-pump licensee living forty miles away was charged because his employees sold petrol without ration coupons. He was not guilty of that charge. A master is not, as a rule, criminally liable for his servant's acts without a guilty mind of his own.
The cases at a glance
| Point | Case | Result |
|---|---|---|
| act without guilty mind | Ram Bahadur Thapa | acquitted |
| enough of an act | Abhayanand Mishra | attempt to cheat |
| act and mind together | Fagan | conviction upheld |
| the mind named by the offence | Basdev, Dr. Vimla | knowledge imputed; no fraud |
| incapacity | Ratan Lal | acquitted |
| gross negligence | Jacob Mathew | criminal standard set higher |
| statutes | Nathulal, Kacheroo Mal, R. v. Prince | presumption, and its exclusion |
| personal fault | Ravula Hariprasada Rao | no vicarious liability |
An assessment
The maxim is the backbone of the criminal law. It makes punishment depend on blame. Its exceptions are narrow. Strict liability is accepted only in welfare statutes where proof of knowledge would defeat the law. Even then the courts presume mens rea first. Intoxication, insanity and mistake are judged by careful rules, so that the maxim excuses the innocent but not the merely careless or reckless. One criticism remains. Because the Code never states the maxim, courts must decide statute by statute whether a guilty mind is needed. The results are not always easy to predict.
Conclusion. The maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea means that a crime needs a guilty act and a guilty mind, joined in time. The Code gives effect to it through the mental words of each offence and the General Exceptions, now sections 14 to 44 of the Sanhita. The cases show each part. Ram Bahadur Thapa and Ratan Lal show no crime without a guilty mind, and Abhayanand Mishra that an act must go far enough. Fagan shows the two must meet, and Basdev and Dr. Vimla that the mind must be the one the offence names. Nathulal presumes mens rea in statutes, and Kacheroo Mal and R. v. Prince show its exclusion.
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.