The maxim "Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea" embodies the principle that the commission of a crime requires both a guilty act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea). This legal doctrine is foundational to criminal jurisprudence and finds significant application in both the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). This article delves into the nuances of this principle, exploring its historical underpinnings, statutory incorporation, and judicial interpretation through landmark cases.

Introduction
The Latin maxim "Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea," translates to "an act does not make a person guilty unless there is a guilty mind." This aphorism captures the essence of criminal liability, emphasizing the dual requirements of actus reus and mens rea for the constitution of a crime. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the recently enacted Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, encapsulate this principle, ensuring that criminal responsibility is assigned not merely on the basis of wrongful acts but also considering the mental state of the accused.

The Indian Penal Code, drafted by Lord Macaulay, has served as the bedrock of criminal law in India for over a century and a half. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, seeks to modernize and streamline these provisions, continuing to uphold the sanctity of the mens rea principle. This article aims to explore the relevance and application of "Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea" within these statutory frameworks, supported by judicial pronouncements.

Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea in Indian Jurisprudence
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, implicitly integrates the principle of mens rea in various sections. For instance, Sections 299 and 300, defining culpable homicide and murder respectively, necessitate the presence of a particular mental state, such as intention or knowledge. Similarly, Section 375, which defines rape, requires the absence of consent, implying a wrongful intention on part of the accused.

In the landmark case of State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (AIR 1965 SC 722), the Supreme Court of India elucidated the significance of mens rea in criminal law. The Court held that the absence of a guilty mind could absolve an individual from criminal liability, even if the act itself was unlawful. This case underscores the judiciary's commitment to the principle that mere commission of an act is insufficient for criminal culpability without the requisite mens rea.

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, aims to contemporize the IPC while retaining its foundational principles. The BNS explicitly reiterates the necessity of mens rea across various offenses. For example, Section 351 of the BNS, which deals with "Criminal Intimidation," requires the intentional instillation of fear in the victim, thereby emphasizing the role of the perpetrator's mental state.

In the case of Narinder Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab & Others (2014) 6 SCC 466, the Supreme Court reiterated the importance of mens rea, especially in cases involving grievous bodily harm. The Court highlighted that the intention or knowledge behind the act was crucial in determining the severity of the offense and the corresponding punishment.

Judicial Interpretation and Case Law
The Indian judiciary has consistently upheld the doctrine of mens rea through various rulings. In K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962 AIR 605, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567), the Supreme Court examined the intent behind the accused's actions to ascertain guilt in a case of culpable homicide. The Court emphasized that the presence of a guilty mind was indispensable for convicting the accused of murder.

Another pertinent case is Santokh Singh v. State of Punjab (1983 SCR (2) 885), where the Supreme Court underscored the significance of mens rea in establishing the guilt of the accused in offenses involving fraudulent or dishonest intentions. The Court ruled that an act done without the requisite guilty mind could not constitute a crime under the IPC.

Conclusion
The principle "Actus Non Facit Reum, Nisi Mens Sit Rea" remains a cornerstone of criminal law, ensuring that liability is not imposed solely based on wrongful acts but also considers the mental state of the accused. Both the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, uphold this doctrine, reflecting its enduring relevance in contemporary jurisprudence. Through a series of landmark judgments, the Indian judiciary has reiterated the necessity of mens rea, thereby safeguarding the rights of individuals against unjust prosecution. This dual requirement continues to ensure that criminal responsibility is justly assigned, maintaining the integrity of the legal system.

End Notes:

• State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722.
• Narinder Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab & Others, (2014) 6 SCC 466.
• K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, 1962 AIR 605, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567.
• Santokh Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 SCR (2) 885.

Reference:

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860
• The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023