The expressions fraudulently dishonestly voluntarily

The expressions fraudulently, dishonestly, voluntarily, knowingly and intentionally, etc. used in
the definitions indicate the criminal intent. No such words have, however, been used in case of
offences which can not be committed by innocent persons. In those offences criminal intent is
presumed. Such offences are Waging war against Government (Sec. 121), Sedition (Sec. 124-A)
and Counterfeiting of Coins (Sec. 232), etc.
ii. The IPC contains a separate chapter on General Exceptions (Sections. 76-106) which indicate
the circumstances where absence of criminal intent is presumed. This is negative method of
applying the principle of mens rea in IPC.

Thus, though the word mens rea as such is nowhere found in the IPC, its essence is
reflected in almost all the provisions of the Penal Code. Every offence created under IPC
virtually imports the idea of criminal intent or mens rea in some form or other.
The doctrine of mens rea has been applied by the Courts in India and it is now firmly
settled law that mens rea is an essential ingredients of offences.
In the case of R. Hariprasada Rao v . State [(1951) SCR 322] the Supreme Court ruled that
unless a statute either clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent
element of crime, a person should not be found guilty of an offence, unless he had a guilty mind
at the time of commission of the offence. The Apex Court reiterated the same principle in the
case of State of Maharashtra v . M.H. George (AIR 1965 SC 722).
This question was once again agitated before the Supreme Court in the case of Nathu
Lal v . State of M.P. (AIR 1966 SC 43). In this case the accused, a food grain dealer, applied for a
licence and deposited the requisite licence fee. He, without knowledge of rejection of his
application, purchased food grains and sent returns to the licensing authority who on checking
found that it was in excess of the quantity permitted by Sec. 7 of M.P. Food Grains Dealers
Licensing Order, 1958. The accused was prosecuted but acquitted on the ground that he had no
guilty mind. The Supreme Court observed:
“ The accused was under a bona fide impression that the licence in regard to which he
had made an application was issued to him though not actually sent to him. The fact that the
licensing authority did not communicate to him the rejection of his application, confirmed the
accused ’ s belief. It was on that belief that he stored the food grains and was sending returns to
the concerned authorities. He could not, therefore, be said to have intentionally contravened
the statutory provisions. ”
V. Exceptions to the Principle of Mens Rea:
There are certain exceptional cases in which mens rea is not required to be proved,
these exceptions are:
i. Offences which are made as such by the statute itself. For ex. the offence of waging war
against the State or the offence of kidnapping.