Intention, motive, knowledge and negligence: the mental states and the theories of negligence (s. 106 BNS)

LUG-106 Substantial Law of Crimes-I (The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - I), Unit I: Intention and theories of negligence. · LLB · 60 min

The mental states that the Sanhita grades: intention, knowledge, rashness and negligence, and the motive that lies behind them. Intention v motive (motive is never an ingredient, a good motive is no defence: Dudley and Stephens), intention v knowledge (Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia), transferred intention (s. 102 BNS), the subjective and objective theories of negligence (Austin and Salmond against Holmes and Kenny), the gross-negligence standard of criminal law (Jacob Mathew, the Bolam test), causation (Kurban Hussein) and s. 106 BNS (s. 304A IPC) with the new hit-and-run clause. Asked in 2024-25 Q1(a)(ii) and Q1(c).

Objectives

Distinguish intention from motive and explain the legal relevance of each
Distinguish intention from knowledge with the homicide sections and Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia
Explain transferred intention under s. 102 BNS
State the subjective and objective theories of negligence and the modern reconciliation
Apply the criminal standard of negligence (gross negligence, Jacob Mathew) and the causation rule (Kurban Hussein) to s. 106 BNS

Slides

The ladder of mental states, and where motive sits
Intention: meaning and proof
Motive: why it is irrelevant to guilt and relevant to everything else
Intention and knowledge: Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia and the homicide sections
Transferred intention: s. 102 BNS (s. 301 IPC)
Rashness and negligence: the definitions
Theories of negligence: subjective and objective
Criminal and civil negligence: Jacob Mathew and the Bolam test
Section 106 BNS (s. 304A IPC): causing death by negligence, and causation
How the examiner asks it

Loading the lecture…