A Defendant's Mental State
This maxim refers to the state of mind of the defendant who is proved to be having ulterior motives when having committed a crime. Mens réa is defined in a statute which establishes the crime or sets a precedent from time to time. The teaching of Mens rea was applied in India by courts, now that mens rea is the most important component of an offence, as firmly settled by law. In addition, the offenses resulting from the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, Drug Acts and Weights and Measurements Act are prohibited without any evidence of guilt and the criminal shall not be liable for the offense without the proof of any guilty knowledge or intention, as it also decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarjoo Prasad v/s State of U.P
R.S. Joshi vs. Ajit Mills Ltd.,1977 AIR 2279, 1978 SCR (1) 338 We can reject the notion that a penalty or punishment cannot be imposed in the form of an absolute or no-fault liability but must be preceded first by mens rea . The classical view that 'no mens rea, no crime' has long since been eroded and several laws in India and abroad, particularly with regard to economic crimes and departmental penalties, have created severe penalties even where the offenses were defined to exclude mens rea. Thus, the claim that Section 37(1) fastens a heavy liability irrespective of fault has no force to deprive the forfeiture of the character of the penalty.
Imagine two riders who end up hitting a pedestrian and killing him. Driver 1 never saw him, so he could not avoid the crash until he was too late and eventually killed the pedestrian. He tried his best, but he could not avert the damage. Driver 1 is liable for punishment for his offense but not as a criminal.
On the other hand, Driver 2, had been out searching for the pedestrian and seeing him, steering towards him, pressing the gas pedal, killing him immediately. Driver 2 is likely to be criminally liable because he intended to kill the pedestrian, or at least to cause severe bodily harm.
Here even though the pedestrian is killed in both scenarios both the driver’s intent are very different and as a result they shall be tried differently. Driver 1 shall be treated as a civilian but Driver 2 shall be treated as a criminal since he intended to cause bodily harm or death to the civilian on the pedestrian.
The judges do not answer to a question of fact
These legal maxims means that, ‘The judges do not answer to a question of fact; the jury do not answer to a question of Law’. In simple words, the question of law is for the judge to decide whereas question of fact are for the jury to decide. Question of law are the questions that are decided by taking the help of law. Question of fact are the questions that are decided on the basis of evidence given by both the parties in proof or disproof of a fact.
A promise not having any consideration, and hence not enforceable by the law. In Latin it means “naked promise” as it is not covered adequately by the aspect of consideration.
No injury is done to a willing person.
The legal maxim is of latin origin meaning those who voluntarily agree to danger cannot ask remedy for the same. In literal meaning the maxim means that when a person agrees to danger then he cannot file a complaint for any damages suffered by him during the process. Here, it is necessary the consent was taken freely and voluntarily by the person and was not obtained by illegal means, and that the person was aware of what he might be subjecting himself to.