Queen v.
Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168
● Established the general rule that a guilty mind (mens rea) is required for a crime.
● However, statutes can create strict liability offences where intent is not necessary.
State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George, AIR 1965 SC 722
● The Supreme Court emphasized that mens rea is a fundamental requirement in
statutory offences.
● However, if a statute expressly or implicitly excludes mens rea, the accused can be
held guilty without it.
Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895) 1 QB 918
● There is a presumption that mens rea is an essential element of
every offence.
● This presumption can be displaced if the statute’s language or
subject matter indicates otherwise.
KM. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605
○ If an accused pleads an exception under IPC, there is a
presumption against him.
○ The burden of rebutting this presumption lies on the accused.
Mobarak Ali v. State of Bombay (1975)
McNaughten’s Case
● Every person is presumed to be sane unless proven otherwise.
● To establish insanity, it must be shown that the accused was suffering
from a defect of reason at the time of the act.
● If the accused knew the nature of the act and that it was wrong, he is
punishable.
● If the accused had partial delusion, his responsibility depends on
whether his perception of reality would have justified his actions.
Queen Empress v. K.N. Shah, (1896) ILR 23 Cal 604
● Not every mental illness exempts criminal liability.
● Only unsoundness of mind that materially impairs cognitive faculties is a
valid defence.
Dayabhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563
● The crucial moment to assess the accused's mental state is the time of the
offence.
● The accused must be incapable of understanding the nature of the act or
knowing that it was wrong.
Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab (1958) - Supreme Court of India
Facts of the Case:
● Virsa Singh was convicted for fatally stabbing Khem Singh with a spear.
● He appealed, arguing he lacked the intention to cause death.
Key Legal Question:
● Whether intention to cause death is necessary for an act to qualify as murder under Section 300(3) IPC.
Supreme Court's Ruling:
● Intention to cause death is NOT mandatory for murder under Section 300(3) IPC.
● The prosecution must prove three essential elements:
1. Bodily injury was inflicted on the victim.
2. Accused intended to cause that particular injury.
3. Injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
● If these conditions are met, the act qualifies as murder, even if there was no explicit intent to kill.
Deo Narain v. State of U.P. (1973) – Supreme Court
Regina v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) – Necessity No Defense to Murder
