Act done by me against my will, is not my act." Examine in the light of legal provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Understanding Mens Rea and Actus Reus

Criminal law generally requires both actus reus (the guilty act) and mens rea (the guilty mind) for an offence to be established. However, the IPC acknowledges that an act performed without the necessary mental element, or against one’s will, may not constitute a crime. This is reflected in several provisions.

Provisions Addressing Lack of Will

1. Section 76 – Acts done by a person insane

Section 76 deals with the defence of insanity. If a person, at the time of committing an act, is of unsound mind and doesn’t know what they are doing, or doesn’t know that what they are doing is wrong, they are not held criminally liable. This directly addresses the ‘will’ aspect, as an insane person lacks the capacity to form the necessary intent.

2. Section 79 – Acts done under compulsion

Section 79 provides a defence for acts done under compulsion. If a person is compelled to do an act by threat of immediate death, or of immediate grievous hurt, to themselves or another person, they are not liable for the act. The compulsion negates the ‘will’ of the individual. However, the threat must be real and imminent.

3. Section 74 – Right of Private Defence

Section 74 and subsequent sections dealing with private defence allow individuals to use reasonable force to protect themselves or others. The act done in exercise of the right of private defence, even if it causes harm, is not considered an offence as the ‘will’ is directed towards self-preservation and is legally justified.

4. Section 92 – Act done under duress

Section 92 deals with acts done under duress, which is similar to compulsion but may involve a less immediate threat. It provides that an act which would otherwise be an offence is not punishable if it is done under reasonable apprehension of death, or of grievous hurt, if such apprehension is caused by an unlawful threat.

5. Mistake of Fact (Section 75)

Section 75 states that a person who, by reason of a mistake of fact, believes that they are legally bound to do an act, is not liable for that act. This demonstrates that if the ‘will’ is based on a genuine, albeit mistaken, understanding of the facts, criminal responsibility is avoided.

Illustrative Examples

• A person forced at gunpoint to rob a bank is not criminally liable for the robbery, as the act was done under compulsion (Section 79).
• An individual suffering from a psychotic episode who commits an act of violence is not held criminally responsible if they were unable to understand the nature of their actions (Section 76).
• A person using force to defend themselves against an attacker is not guilty of assault, as the act is justified under the right of private defence (Section 74).

Limitations and Considerations

It’s important to note that these defences are not absolute. The degree of compulsion, the imminence of the threat, and the reasonableness of the belief are all subject to judicial scrutiny. The burden of proof generally lies on the accused to establish these defences.