Strict Liability under Indian penal code

Introduction

Whether a crime can be said to have been committed without the necessary essential element of crime "mens rea?”. This question leads to controversy. Ordinarily a guilty mind is necessary to constitute a crime but there are crimes which do not require fault of anyone are known as strict liability. Strict liability is a doctrine evolved in English law and is primarily found in civil or tort law, but it has been adopted to a limited extent in Indian criminal law, particularly in social welfare and regulatory offences.

History Background

• This Concept has been originated from English law in Rylands Vs Fletcher (1868).
• A person who brings something onto their land that causes harm to other when it escapes is liable even without fault.
• Applied to regulatory offences in Indian penal code – e.g. food safety, environmental protection, customs, etc

Essential Elements of Strict Liability

These are the essential elements of Strict Liability in Indian Penal Code

1. No Mens Rea Required:- Accused can be held guilty even without any malice intention, negligence or knowledge.

2. Actus Reus is sufficient:- Mere commission of the act which has been prohibited by law is sufficient.

3. Public Interest Doctrine:- It applied in matters where public interest is in question   such as public health, safety, morality and economic regulations.

4. Limited Exceptions:- Some defences like mistake of fact can be used by the defendant but generally no defence of ignorance.

Exceptions of offences such as Dacoity, waging war against the state, etc.

IPC Sections reflecting Strict Liability

1. Dowry Death (S 304B)

• If a woman dies within 7 years of marriage under suspicious circumstances and was harassed for dowry, the husband or relatives are presumed responsible.
• Even there is no direct evidence of intent to kill.

2. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship (S 361)

• If a minor (boy <16, girl <18) is taken away without guardian’s consent, intention or ignorance of age is no defence.

3. Sale of Obscene Material (S 292)

• Selling or distributing obscene books/material is an offence.

(Knowledge of obscenity is not essential, and liability can arise only by its possession or sale)

4. Rape (S 375)

• Sexual intercourse with a girl under 18 is rape regardless of consent or belief about her age. No mens rea is required regarding age

Case Law on Strict Liability under IPC

Case - State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (AIR 1965 SC 722)

Fact – 1. A Foreign national carried gold in India without Reserve Bank of India permission.

2. Defence has been taken by him that he was unaware of recent notification banning it.

Held- Ignorance of law is no defence. Mens rea is not required under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to be liable.

Conclusion

While the Indian penal code is primarily based on the principle of mens rea, the concept of strict liability plays a vital role in certain offences where proving intention is of no use. Mere commission of the prohibited act is enough to attract criminal liability in Indian penal code regardless of the accused intention or knowledge. It ensures societal interest particularly in sensitive matters such as dowry death, child protection and sexual offences. This concept emerges as a powerful tool in modern criminal jurisprudence for the protection of public interest.