Data Structure
Networking
RDBMS
Operating System
Java
MS Excel
iOS
HTML
CSS
Android
Python
C Programming
C++
C#
MongoDB
MySQL
Javascript
PHP
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Mathematics
English
Economics
Psychology
Social Studies
Fashion Studies
Legal Studies
- Selected Reading
- UPSC IAS Exams Notes
- Developer's Best Practices
- Questions and Answers
- Effective Resume Writing
- HR Interview Questions
- Computer Glossary
- Who is Who
Actus Me Invito Factus Non Est Mens Actus: Definition and Meaning
In criminal law, the phrase “Actus me invito factus non est mens actus,” is frequently used as a defense. The idea behind this maxim is that if someone is pressured into performing an act that they ordinarily wouldn't do or have no intention of performing but are nonetheless forced to do it, the act cannot be claimed to be their own because it was not voluntary or free.
What is the meaning of Actus me invito factus non est mens actus?
A Latin legal proverb read as "Actus me invite factus non est meus actus," essentially defined as, "the act any person commit against his/her will is not his/her act."
Illustration
B threatens to shoot A if she doesn't attack C. In this case, if A attacks C, it will be claimed that A's action was not voluntary and was instead coerced, making it not her own.
Actuse me invito factus non est mens under IPC,1860
In the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” has been incorporated in two key ways:
Through the explicit inclusion of the necessary mental state (mens rea) in the legal definition of an offense.
By way of the "General Exceptions" listed in Chapter 5 of the Code, some of them, such as factual error, an accident, infantile infancy, and insanity, contest the presence of mens rea.
Case Laws
People of the Philippines v. Juan Salvatierra
Fact: Only three of the five accused were brought to justice for conspiring to break into Hichiro Kubota and Elizabeth Hammond's home on the evening of 1988, steal 800,000, and commit double homicide as well as attempted homicide. Once inside, the accused had sex with Hichiro Kubota's maid, Hazel Arjona, inflicted fatal wounds that contributed to their deaths, and attempted to stab Marilyn Juguilon, the other maid. Trinidad was exonerated, but Constantino and Salvatierra were found guilty since the other two defendants managed to escape. As a result, defendant Eric Constatino, the driver of the deceased Hichiro Kubota, filed an appeal on the ground that he had acted out of an uncontrollable fear following his alleged coercion into committing the crime for which they were all charged.
Ruling: The judgment of the trial court was upheld by the Higher Court. The standards under which the defendant's statement of the alleged application of duress upon him by his accomplices could have meaningful value as evidence are far from being met. The Court ruled that in order for duress to be legitimately used, it must be based on a genuine, impending, or realistic fear for one's own life or limb and cannot be hypothetical, irrational, or imagined.
According to the legal maxim actus me invito factus non est meus actus, which translates to "an act done by me against my will is not my act," freedom is completely absent in this situation. The accused must have been subjected to such extreme coercion that there was no chance for him to flee or force himself to take any action in self−defense.
The actions taken by the defendant, as described by the victims in their capacity as witnesses, unequivocally show that he worked together with his other co−accused to carry out their illegal scheme. Further evidence of his guilt may be found in his swift flight to and months−long stay in Sorsogon following the tragedy.
Conclusion
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, a Latin proverb, has been a driving force in the development of criminal law. This maxim embodies the fundamental principles of the criminal justice system. This dictum is not simply contained in criminal statutes; rather, it has also found application in a number of the decisions covered in this article. If this adage had never been coined, the criminal justice system would have been rendered inoperable.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What does actus me invito est meus actus mean?
Ans: An action carried out against one's will or choice, is not that person's action. In criminal law, this is typically used as a defense.
Q: What is the origin of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea in India?
Ans: The Indian Penal Code, 1860 incorporates the dictum actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea in two key ways: by explicitly including the necessary mental state (mens rea) in the description of an offense.
363 Views
