Mumbai University Solved Question Papers
Criminal Jurisprudence
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
LLM · Group 5 Criminal Law and Criminal Administration
2024 Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
LLM Group 5 Criminal Law and Criminal Administration Criminal Jurisprudence 2024 Question Paper with Solutions
Get access to whole semester resourcesSemester Pass
MU LLM student group
Free to join
First published on munotes.in on 13 August 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 the University of Mumbai. It is not affiliated with the University of Mumbai, 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 the University of Mumbai at the 2024 examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as the University of Mumbai set it at the 2024 examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2024 examination, reproduced as the University of Mumbai set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 7 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- Please check whether you have got the right question paper
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.
SECTION I
Paper Subject Code 76017, printer's form 49785, sat 12 June 2024. Attempt any FOUR questions, all questions carry equal marks
any four of seven · 100 Marks
1.Explain the concept of Mens Rea with the help of leading case laws.[25]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the marks are not in translating the phrase. They are in showing that mens rea is not one state of mind but several, that the Penal Code never uses the expression and instead writes a specific mental element into each definition, and that the courts presume the requirement even where a statute is silent. Take the varieties one at a time with the section that uses each. Distinguish motive. Then give the situations where the requirement is displaced, and finish on how a state of mind is actually proved. This exact question is printed on 2 of the papers in this folder, and the answer is the same on every one of them: a candidate sitting either paper writes this.
What mens rea means, and what it does not
Mens rea is the mental element which the definition of a particular offence requires. The maxim is actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty, in the form Coke gave it, the idea having reached the common law from the canon law's requirement of moral fault.
Two misconceptions have to be cleared at once, because both cost marks.
Mens rea is not a single state of mind. There is no general mental element called wickedness which the prosecution proves. What must be proved is the particular state the offence names, and that differs from offence to offence: an intention in murder, a dishonest intention in theft, knowledge in one limb of culpable homicide, rashness or negligence in causing death by a rash act.
Mens rea is not motive. The distinction is developed below and it is where a third of the marks on this question have always been.
Why the Penal Code never uses the phrase
The Code was drafted so as to make the general maxim unnecessary. Macaulay's method was to write the required mental element into the definition of each offence, using words of precise meaning, and then to supply in Chapter IV a set of general exceptions which negative fault. Section 6 directed that every definition of an offence be read subject to that chapter.
The result is that mens rea in Indian law is found by reading the section charged, not by applying an external doctrine. Chapter IV is now Chapter III of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, sections 14 to 44.
The varieties of the mental element
Intention. The aim or purpose with which the act is done. Section 300 of the Code, now section 101 of the Sanhita, defines murder by reference to an intention to cause death, or an intention to cause bodily injury which the offender knows to be likely to cause death, or such bodily injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The Code writes it as "intentionally", "voluntarily" and "with intent to".
Knowledge. Awareness of a circumstance, or of a consequence as likely. The third limb of section 299, now section 100, makes it culpable homicide to cause death "with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death". A man who fires into a crowd not caring whom he hits may intend nobody's death and is liable on knowledge alone.
Rashness. Conscious risk-taking: the actor adverts to the risk and runs it in the hope that no harm will follow.
Negligence. Failure to take the care a reasonable man would take, without adverting to the risk at all. Section 304A of the Code, now section 106 of the Sanhita, punishes causing death by a rash or negligent act, and the two words are not synonyms. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, holds that for criminal liability the negligence must be gross, showing such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State, and that a doctor is judged by the standard of an ordinary competent practitioner exercising ordinary skill and not by the standard of the highest expert.
Dishonesty and fraud. Sections 24 and 25 of the Code, now sections 2(7) and 2(9) of the Sanhita, define "dishonestly" as doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain or wrongful loss, and "fraudulently" as doing a thing with intent to defraud. They are the mental element of the property offences: taking an umbrella believing it to be one's own is not theft because the intention is not dishonest, though every other element is present.
Good faith. Section 52 of the Code, now section 2(11), provides that nothing is said to be done in good faith which is done without due care and attention. Several general exceptions require it, so the absence of mens rea is there proved by establishing its presence.
The act and the mind must coincide
The guilty mind must accompany the guilty act. A person who causes a death by accident and is pleased about it afterwards is not a murderer, and a person who plans a killing and then causes the death accidentally before executing the plan is not one either.
Thabo Meli v. R, [1954] 1 WLR 228, shows the courts softening this where a sequence of acts forms one transaction. The accused beat a man intending to kill him, believed him dead, and rolled the body over a cliff to simulate an accident; the victim in fact died of exposure at the foot of the cliff. It was argued that when the fatal act was done there was no intention to kill, the accused believing his victim already dead. The Privy Council rejected the argument, holding that the series of acts was one transaction which could not be divided. The case bears on the concept because it applies the coincidence requirement to the transaction rather than to the instant.
The leading Indian cases on the presumption
Srinivas Mall Bairoliya v. Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 135. A licensed salt dealer was convicted of selling salt above the controlled price, the sales having been made by his servant without his knowledge. The Privy Council quashed the conviction, saying that it would be a serious departure from principle to hold a man criminally responsible for the act of his servant, and that the presumption that mens rea is required is displaced only by clear words. The case is important because it shows the presumption defeating a wartime control statute at the height of its enforcement.
Ravula Hariprasada Rao v. State, AIR 1951 SC 204. The proprietor of petrol pumps was convicted of breaches of the Motor Spirit Rationing Order committed by his employees in supplying petrol without coupons. The Supreme Court set aside the convictions on the counts where he had no knowledge, applying the same presumption in the first years of the Court's existence.
Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 43, states the modern test. A foodgrains dealer at Dhar held a large stock of wheat without a licence. He had applied for a licence and had sent his stock returns regularly to the authorities, who had not acted on the application. Prosecuted under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, he was acquitted. The Supreme Court held that mens rea is presumed to be an ingredient of every offence, and that it may be excluded by necessary implication only where it is absolutely clear that the object of the statute would otherwise be defeated and where excluding it would actually assist enforcement. The case bears on the concept because it refuses to treat "regulatory economic statute" as a formula that answers the question.
Where the requirement is displaced
Strict liability. State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722. A German national carrying about thirty-four kilograms of gold in a specially made jacket flew from Zurich towards Manila and the aircraft touched down at Bombay. A Reserve Bank notification, published shortly before, made the transit of gold through India without permission an offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and he knew nothing of it. The Supreme Court held by majority that the offence was one of strict liability, because the object of the Act was to conserve foreign exchange and prevent smuggling and would be defeated if knowledge had to be proved. Read with Nathulal, the test is the purpose of the statute, not the size of the penalty.
Statutory presumptions. Sections 35 and 54 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 presume a culpable mental state and presume possession from unexplained custody; section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 presumes commission. Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417, upheld such provisions but confined them: the prosecution must first prove the foundational facts and make out a prima facie case, and only then does the legal burden shift, the accused's burden thereafter being a preponderance of probabilities.
Imputed knowledge. Section 86 of the Code, now section 24 of the Sanhita, provides that a person who commits an offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge while voluntarily intoxicated shall be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as if sober. Basdev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488, held that the section imputes knowledge but says nothing about intention, which must still be gathered from the whole circumstances with due regard to the degree of intoxication; Basdev, a retired jamadar who shot a boy of fifteen or sixteen at a wedding after drinking heavily, was convicted of murder because he could still walk and speak coherently.
Motive is not mens rea
Intention is the mental element the definition requires. Motive is the reason that moved the accused to form it.
A man who kills his terminally ill mother to end her suffering has an admirable motive and a plainly guilty intention, and is guilty of murder. A man who takes another's book believing it to be his own has a neutral motive and no dishonest intention, and is not a thief.
Motive is therefore irrelevant to guilt. It is highly relevant to proof where the case rests on circumstantial evidence, because the chain of circumstances must exclude every hypothesis but guilt, and an unexplained absence of any reason to kill is itself a competing hypothesis. And it is always relevant to sentence, since the reason for the act is precisely what a judge weighs.
How the mental element is proved
A state of mind cannot be observed, so it is inferred.
The presumption that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts is the starting point. It is a rule of evidence and not of law, and it is rebuttable. A man who fires a rifle at another's chest from three feet requires nothing further to establish the intention to cause death.
The weapon used, the part of the body struck, the force and the number of blows are the ordinary materials. Conduct before and after the act is relevant under section 8 of the Evidence Act, 1872, now section 6 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: lying in wait, absconding, or attempting to destroy the body are evidence of intention, while calling for help and taking the victim to hospital is evidence against it. Where a state of mind is itself in issue, section 14 of the Evidence Act, now section 12 of the Adhiniyam, makes its existence relevant.
Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakker v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563, closes the circle and is the case most often omitted. The appellant killed his wife and pleaded unsoundness of mind. The Supreme Court held that the burden on an accused claiming a general exception under section 105 of the Evidence Act is discharged on a preponderance of probabilities, and, decisively, that even where he fails to establish the exception the material he has led may still raise a reasonable doubt about the intention the offence requires, in which case he must be acquitted on the prosecution's own burden. The case shows that the requirement of a guilty mind operates independently of the statutory exceptions, and that the general burden of proving it never leaves the State.
Conclusion. Mens rea is the mental element the particular offence demands, and Indian law implements the maxim not by a general section but by writing intention, knowledge, rashness, negligence, dishonesty or good faith into each definition and by supplying the general exceptions that negative fault. The requirement is presumed even where a statute is silent, as Srinivas Mall Bairoliya, Ravula Hariprasada Rao and Nathulal establish, and is displaced only where the object of the statute would otherwise fail, as Mayer Hans George found, or by an express presumption confined as Noor Aga confines it, or by a statutory imputation limited as Basdev limits section 86. Motive is no part of it, and the mental element is proved by inference from conduct, with Dahyabhai Thakker holding that a failed exception may still leave the prosecution short of proving it.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the LL.M. Criminal Law and Criminal Administration Semester 1 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.
Notes + Solved papers: ₹798 Already bought it? Sign in
Or solved papers only: ₹499
Or notes only: ₹499
The question paper itself stays free, as does the syllabus and module one of every subject.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.