Daily News & Analysis
The sensational case came to light in June 2006 where Delhi police claimed that it has arrested three persons -- RAW official Brigadier Ujjal Dasgupta, ...
Analyze the case against the officers from the Criminal requirement ( highlighted in red) of Mens Rea and Causal relationship:
Mens Rea
A. Overview
There must be a mental element to a crime
Justifiable reasons are not used when considering mens rea
No valid criminal conviction can be obtained without proving the mental element for each charge
B. General Requirements of Culpability (italics = mine)
(1) Minimum requirements of Culpability - except as provided in Section 2.05, a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposefully ,knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense
(2) Kinds of culpability defined
(a) Purposefully - Conscious objective to achieve a harmful result; similar to intentional Result crimes: Murder, Theft, Battery (defendant must intent the result)
Conduct crimes: DWI, perjury (defendant is engaging in conduct that is likely to have a bad result)
Attendant circumstance crimes: burglary, bigamy, statutory rape (some condition must be present in addition to the conduct / result)
(b) Knowingly - Actor is aware the result will occur; aware his conduct is of this nature and the result is practically certain
(c) Recklessly - Consciously creates or disregards a substantial and unjust risk; involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a reasonable law abiding person
(d) Negligently - Inadvertent creation of the risk; failure to recognize a substantial and unjustifiable risk
(3) recklessly is the lowest element required when none are prescribed in the statute (4) apply mens rea to all elements unless otherwise divided
(5) higher levels of culpability can substitute for lower levels knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense
(a) it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred; and
(b) the relationship between the conduct and result satisfies any additional causal requirements imposed by the code or by the law defining the offense
(2) When purposely or knowingly causing a particular result is an element of an offense, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the purpose or the contemplation of the actor unless:
(a) the actual result differs from that designed or contemplated, as the case may be only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected or that the injury or harm designed or contemplated would have been more serious or more extensive than that caused; or
(b) the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as that designed or contemplated and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor's liability or on the gravity of his offense
(3) " " substitute "risk" for "purpose or contemplation"
(4) When causing a particular result is a material element of an offense for which absolute liability is imposed by law, the element is not established unless the actual result is a probable consequence of the actor's conduct
The interpretation of some official in NSCS does or does not make a crime from the Mens Rea and also Causal Relationships perspective.
The whole case falls on its own face!
How tenuous the case is and the officers spent 5 years in Tihar jail on the words of some character in NSCS! That official can not classify the document retrospectively on the basis of his "opinion". What a tragedy.
The minutes of the meeting is very well known to the "foreign agent" to whom the officers were accused of passing the information because she also attended the very same meeting!
How ridiculous the charge could get!
Nath
No comments:
Post a Comment