The Ultimate Guide to Criminal Liability and its’ Territorial Jurisdiction Under Indian Law

The criminal justice system in India has long been defined by its complex structure, influenced by the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which for over a century has served as the cornerstone of criminal law. However, with the introduction of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the landscape of criminal law in India is undergoing a transformation. This shift carries major implications for understanding and establishing criminal liability, particularly in the context of territorial jurisdiction. Let’s explore the core concepts of criminal liability, the interplay between intra-territorial and extra-territorial jurisdiction.

The Concept of Criminal Liability: Understanding the Foundations

Criminal liability essentially refers to the legal responsibility a person bears when they commit a criminal offense, and this responsibility can lead to criminal sanctions such as fines, imprisonment, or both. Under traditional criminal law, two major elements must be established for a conviction: actus reus (the physical act of the crime) and mens rea (the mental state or intention behind the crime). Both these elements are indispensable in determining whether an individual can be held criminally responsible.

Actus Reus: The Physical Act

Actus reus is the external component of the crime, which refers to the physical action or the omission that constitutes a criminal offense. Whether it is assault, theft, or fraud, actus reus represents the unlawful act that results in harm or risk to another individual or society.
For instance, under the offense of rape, the physical act of penetration is the “actus reus,” whereas the mental state or intention is the “mens rea.” The physical act must be proven to establish that the crime occurred.

Mens Rea: The Mental State

Mens rea refers to the state of mind of the accused at the time the offense is committed. It is often described as the “guilty mind” that must accompany the physical act. In criminal law, mens rea is essential because it differentiates between an accidental act and an intentional criminal act. The presence of mens rea signifies that the act was done with knowledge, intention, recklessness, or negligence.

For instance, in the case of R v Cunningham (1957), the court held that for a defendant to be criminally liable for causing harm, it must be proven that the harm was caused with some degree of intent or recklessness. This principle applies under most nations’ criminal code, where both the physical act and the mental state must align to establish liability.

The Role of Intra-Territorial and Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction in Criminal Liability

The introduction of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita has brought a more nuanced understanding of jurisdiction in criminal cases. This includes defining the territorial limits within which Indian courts can exercise authority over criminal matters. Jurisdiction, can be categorized into two primary types: intra-territorial jurisdiction and extra-territorial jurisdiction.

Intra-Territorial Jurisdiction: Domestic Reach

Intra-territorial jurisdiction refers to the authority exercised by Indian courts over offences committed within the geographical boundaries of India. Under traditional criminal law, crimes committed within India fall under the purview of Indian courts, and the IPC clearly delineates the legal processes for the investigation, prosecution, and conviction of individuals.

The BNS builds on these principles, consolidating and expanding the scope of criminal offenses that can be tried within India’s borders. For example, Section 101 of the BNS expands the scope of jurisdiction for crimes committed by non-residents within Indian territory. This is especially important in cases involving terrorism, organized crime, or human trafficking, where offenses may span multiple regions within the country.

The impact of intra-territorial jurisdiction is clear: crimes that take place on Indian soil, whether they involve Indian nationals or foreign nationals, can be prosecuted in Indian courts. The Indian government’s exercise of its criminal jurisdiction is largely seen as a means of safeguarding its citizens and maintaining public order.

Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction: Extending Legal Reach Beyond Borders

Extra-territorial jurisdiction, on the other hand, allows Indian courts to prosecute offenses that, although committed outside India, have a substantial impact within the country. This principle is increasingly important in a globalized world, where criminal activities like cybercrime, money laundering, and terrorism often transcend national borders.

The case of Mubarak Ali v. State of Bombay (1957) stands as a foundational example of extra-territorial jurisdiction in Indian law. In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that even if a crime was committed outside the country, it could be prosecuted in India if it involved Indian citizens or affected Indian interests. The judgment emphasized the need for a comprehensive legal framework to address crimes with cross-border elements, especially in an age of technological advancements.

Under the BNS, extra-territorial jurisdiction is further emphasized, allowing Indian authorities to pursue criminal cases against non-residents who engage in criminal activities impacting India. For example, in cases of financial fraud, foreign nationals involved in financial crimes targeting Indian entities or individuals can be prosecuted under Indian law, provided the offense fulfils certain criteria stipulated under the new legislation.

The IT Act and Its Role in Criminal Liability

As the digital age continues to evolve, India’s criminal law system is confronted with the growing challenges posed by cybercrime and offenses that occur in the virtual world. The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) plays a critical role in addressing crimes such as hacking, identity theft, and cyberstalking, among others.

The IT Act is a specialized piece of legislation that governs online activities and defines various cybercrimes and penalties associated with them. In the context of criminal liability, the IT Act interacts with the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita in several ways. For instance, offenses such as cyber fraud or online defamation may involve elements of both physical and virtual presence, thus complicating the traditional concepts of actus reus and mens rea.

For example, under Section 66 of the IT Act, hacking is defined as unauthorized access to a computer system with the intention of damaging, altering, or destroying information. In this case, the actus reus is the unauthorized access and the mens rea is the intention to cause harm. When dealing with cybercrimes that span across multiple jurisdictions, extra-territorial jurisdiction under the BNS becomes especially relevant, allowing Indian authorities to investigate and prosecute offenders located outside India but whose actions affect Indian entities.

Case Laws and Their Impact on Criminal Liability

Several pivotal case laws have shaped the way extra-territorial jurisdiction and criminal liability are interpreted in Indian law. These rulings continue to influence the application of the BNS in determining liability for crimes that affect Indian interests, regardless of where the offense occurred.

1. Mubarak Ali v. State of Bombay (1957): This case involved the prosecution of a conspirator who was involved in a crime that originated outside India but had repercussions in India. The Supreme Court held that even if a crime occurs outside the country, Indian courts can exercise jurisdiction if the consequences affect Indian interests. This judgment laid the groundwork for expanding the scope of extra-territorial jurisdiction under the BNS.

2. Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India (1993): In this case, the Supreme Court examined whether a foreign national involved in conspiracy and crimes impacting Indian interests could be prosecuted in India. The court ruled that conspiracy committed abroad but resulting in harm to Indian entities could indeed be prosecuted in India under Indian law, further strengthening extra-territorial jurisdiction.

3. State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries Ltd. (2004): This case explored the territorial limits of criminal law and the applicability of Indian jurisdiction to foreign nationals involved in domestic crimes. The judgment reinforced the notion that India has the legal right to prosecute those who harm its interests, even if the actions take place beyond its borders.

The Global Context: Comparative Approaches to Criminal Liability

In comparing India’s approach to criminal liability and jurisdiction under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita with other judicial systems, several key differences and similarities emerge. For example, in the United States, the concept of universal jurisdiction allows U.S. courts to prosecute certain crimes, such as war crimes and terrorism, regardless of where they occur, as long as they have significant links to the U.S. Similarly, the United Kingdom allows for prosecution of its nationals abroad, particularly in cases related to terrorism and serious organized crime.

However, the Indian approach under the BNS and the IT Act is more nuanced. While India adopts extra-territorial jurisdiction in cases impacting its national security or economic interests, it also relies heavily on international cooperation and treaties to deal with cross-border criminal activities, as seen in cases like cybercrime and money laundering.

Thus, Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita presents a modern and progressive framework for understanding criminal liability in India, particularly in the context of territorial jurisdiction. By emphasizing both intra-territorial and extra-territorial jurisdiction, the BNS ensures that India can effectively address both domestic crimes and those with international implications. Furthermore, the integration of the IT Act highlights the need for a legal system that can address the complexities of cybercrime in an increasingly digital world.

As India continues to refine its criminal laws under the BNS, it must remain vigilant in balancing its national interests with the principles of justice and fairness. While the BNS provides a comprehensive framework, it also calls for international cooperation and evolving legal strategies to address the challenges posed by modern criminal activities.

Author: Apoorva Lamba, 2nd Year LLB. Student of Madhav Mahavidyalaya, Jiwaji University, Gwalior

Wish to read similar articles? Click the link to read a commentary on BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023: https://jpassociates.co.in/bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023/

Link to BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023: https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/250883_english_01042024.pdf