Traditional approach to had been to formulate a definition of crime. Therefore all the eminet jurist beginning with blackstone down to Kenny attempted to define crime, but, they all have failed to ring within the narrow compares of s definition the flexible notion of crime, because it was conditioned by the changing moral value and social opinion of the community from time to time. Moreover, the traditional approach to crime may have well suited a society which had which had not developed into a a comples society. iminal law there lies nothing more significant doctrine of criminal liability then that of mens rea embedded as are its roots in the principles that no man shall be punished for comiting for a crime unless a guilty mind can be in puted to him. Since the turn of the last century this doctrine has been assailed is no uncertained a manner by the legislature.
However, whether tracing the existence of notion of mens rea under statutory consideration in case of R.V. Prince, R.V. Tolson of presidential aspect ranging up to cases of Shrinivamal V. King Emperor, Inder Sen V. State of Punjab in India context, the pro establishment of this norm of culpability under criminal law , can always be found scattered and reflected everywhere. However, the highest order of justice, the supreme court had even from tie to time declared this fact for framing a charge for an offence under IPC the traditional rule of existence of mens rea is followed.
Dispensing of with this notin of criminal liability will not be an easier task as it appears to be. How ever , most of the authors have found this doctrine to be inapplicable to IPC but even then , they can not deny this truth that the code itself demarcate this doctrine under in corporation for element analysis of various offence, very distinctively and expressly. And where ever legislature had felt this need to decline from the approach. They had made there intentions clear and cautiously as under offence of strict liability which stands as an exception to the rule of mens rea under criminal liability.
This great doctrinre of criminal law has undergone ups and donw on its own fate but can never ever be dispensed away with formly from any criminal act the journey played and traveled by this principle, fro the age old maxim of 800 year experience of criminal law, ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ till today is remarkable in the history of general principles of criminal law.
Beginning of the concept
By the end of the 12th century two influential thought s were aking themselves considerable norms of that day. One of them being the roman law which resuscitated in the university in the eleventh and twelfths century. Several demarcated attempts were having been made at that time to engraft and planting the concepts of the roman law into the English law. Sir Brocton having been observed borrowing ideas and legal ters and incorporating maxims directly from the code and digest the second influential thought dominating the minds of then theorists was even more powerful was the common law. Whose insistence upon moral guilt emphasis still further the mental element in crime in determining the sin, the mental element must be scrutinized quite a closely as the physical act itself. However, it is also been evident that Brocton writing in13 century was , was under the strong roman and communist influence when he emphasized the mental requisites of criminality. Indeed, at present it can be highly now being appreciated that traditional crime growing sense under culpability norm of criminal liability were, and are dependent upon the moral and mental guilty and will become accepted norm of days to come . it is still been under study and uder watch full eyes of criminologist and philosphers of the time, that how far thi growing sense that criminality should depend upon moral guilt, becoming there unforgettable and decisive tool of law of later days. It underlines,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document