KSLU Solved Question Papers
Criminal Law I
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 4
2021 Mar (70 marks) Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 4 Criminal Law I 2021 Mar (70 marks) Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 2 November 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 2021 Mar (70 marks) examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2021 Mar (70 marks) examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2021 Mar (70 marks) 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 2½ hours · Total marks 70 · 14 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.
Q1"Actus non-facit reum nisi mens sit rea". Explain.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the maxim word by word and its two halves; the act half (a voluntary act or illegal omission, sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Penal Code); the mind half and the forms it takes in the Code; how the Code gives effect to the maxim without stating it, through the words of each offence and the General Exceptions, with case laws on unsoundness of mind (Hari Singh Gond) and mistake of fact (Ram Bahadur Thapa); the presumption of mens rea in other statutes (Nathulal); the exceptions to the maxim, strict liability (Kacheroo Mal); the position under the Sanhita; a conclusion.
The maxim
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea is a Latin maxim. Word by word, actus is the act, non facit reum means "does not make a person guilty", and nisi mens sit rea means "unless the mind is guilty". So an act alone does not make a person guilty. His mind must be guilty too.
The maxim gives every crime two halves.
- Actus reus, the guilty act: the outward conduct the law forbids, and its result.
- Mens rea, the guilty mind: the mental state the law requires with that conduct.
Both must exist, and at the same time.
The act half
The act must be the accused's own voluntary conduct. If A's hand is forced by B to strike C, the act is B's, not A's.
The Code also treats an omission as an act where there is a legal duty to act. Under section 32, words referring to acts include illegal omissions. Under section 33, an act includes a series of acts. A jailer who lets a prisoner starve, when the law obliges him to feed him, commits an actus reus by omission.
The mind half
Mens rea is not one fixed state of mind. The Code uses many forms.
- Intention: aiming at the result, as in murder.
- Knowledge: awareness that the result is likely, as in culpable homicide.
- Dishonesty (section 24) and fraud (section 25): the property and document offences.
- Rashness or negligence: causing death by negligence (section 304A).
So the question is never "was the mind guilty in general?" It is "did the accused have the state of mind that this offence requires?"
How the Code gives effect to the maxim
The Code has no section stating the maxim. It gives effect to it in two ways.
First, through the words of each offence. Each definition names its mental element. Theft needs "dishonestly", forgery needs "dishonestly or fraudulently", and murder needs intention or knowledge.
Second, through the General Exceptions, sections 76 to 106. Most describe persons who lack a guilty mind. Examples are a child under seven, a person of unsound mind, and a person acting under an honest mistake of fact.
Facts. In Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 31, decided on 29 August 2008, an accused convicted of murder pleaded unsoundness of mind under section 84.
Held. Not every person with a mental disease is exempt. The court is concerned with legal insanity, not medical insanity. The accused must show that, because of unsoundness of mind, he could not know the nature of the act, or that it was wrong. His burden is lighter than the prosecution's.
Why it bears. Section 84 applies the maxim. A man who cannot know what he is doing has no guilty mind.
Facts. In State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa, AIR 1960 Ori 161, decided on 9 November 1959, a newly arrived servant who believed in ghosts went out at midnight to a place said to be haunted. Seeing figures round a lantern, and told they were ghosts, he struck at them with his khurki. They were village women gathering mahua flowers, and one died.
Held. He was protected by section 79, mistake of fact in good faith. The care expected of him had to be judged by his own capacity and situation.
Why it bears. He meant to strike ghosts, not human beings. The act was deadly, but the mind was not guilty.
Other statutes: the presumption
Outside the Code, many statutes say nothing about the mental element. The courts presume that the maxim still applies.
In Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43, a grain dealer who had applied for a licence was charged with storing grain without one. The Supreme Court acquitted him. Mens rea is essential unless the statute excludes it expressly or by necessary implication.
The exception: strict liability
Some public welfare laws do exclude it.
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 adulterated article was the gist of the offence. His protection lay in the strict procedure for taking and testing samples.
Why it bears. Where the law protects public health, the maxim gives way. Doing the forbidden act is enough.
Under the Sanhita
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 keeps the Code's method. Its definitions of the mental words are in section 2, and the General Exceptions are sections 14 to 44. The maxim works in the same way.
Conclusion. The maxim means that an act does not make a person guilty unless his mind is also guilty. So every crime needs actus reus and mens rea together. The Code does not state it in one section. It applies it through the mental words of each offence and through the General Exceptions. Hari Singh Gond on insanity and Ram Bahadur Thapa on mistake show this. Other statutes are presumed to require mens rea, as Nathulal holds. Strict liability in public welfare laws, as in Kacheroo Mal, is the narrow exception.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.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, and so does the syllabus.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.