Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
| Literal meaning | An act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty |
|---|---|
| Pronunciation | AK-tus non FAH-kit RAY-um NIS-ee mens sit RAY-ah |
A crime needs two things: a guilty act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea). The act alone is not enough.
A person takes a bag from a table, honestly believing it is his own. The act looks like theft, but there is no dishonest intention, so there is no crime.
- Actus reus: a prohibited act or omission.
- Mens rea: intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence, as the offence requires.
- Both must occur together.
- Nathulal v. State of M.P. (1966), Supreme Court: the accused was held not guilty for want of mens rea. Mens rea is presumed essential unless the statute clearly excludes it.
- Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895), Queen's Bench Division, England: the leading English case on the presumption that mens rea is required, even in statutory offences.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Chapter on General Exceptions (earlier Indian Penal Code, Chapter IV).
Strict liability offences, where a statute dispenses with mens rea. Many regulatory and food-safety offences are of this kind.
Indian penal law builds mens rea into its definitions through words like "intentionally", "knowingly" and "dishonestly".
Asked in Criminal Law papers, usually together with the exceptions (strict liability).
Act + Mind = Crime. Remove either one and there is no crime.
A guilty act alone is not a crime; the mind must be guilty too.
© 2026 NyayaSaral