Reconstructing Criminal Liability in India: Mens Rea, Judicial Interpretation and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22911622Keywords:
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Criminal Evidence, Judicial Interpretation, Criminal Liability, Mens Rea, Criminal CulpabilityAbstract
The enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 marks a significant reorganisation of India’s substantive criminal law and raises renewed questions concerning the foundations of criminal responsibility. This article examines the changing architecture of criminal liability under the new statutory framework, with particular emphasis on mens rea, intention, knowledge, evidentiary inference and judicial interpretation. It argues that criminal liability cannot be established solely through the identification of prohibited conduct or harmful consequences. The attribution of criminal responsibility requires a principled connection between the accused’s conduct, the mental element prescribed by the offence, and evidence sufficient to establish that element. The article further examines how the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 structures the evidentiary process through which intention, motive, preparation and subsequent conduct may become relevant to criminal adjudication. Particular attention is given to the judicial task of distinguishing legitimate inference from suspicion when determining guilt on circumstantial evidence. Drawing upon Indian criminal jurisprudence and contemporary scholarship on legal meaning, the article contends that the BNS should not be understood merely as a replacement of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but as a new statutory setting in which established principles of culpability require careful judicial application. It concludes that legality, mens rea, evidentiary discipline and reasoned interpretation remain essential safeguards against unjustified expansion of criminal responsibility.
Downloads
References
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2023. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Act No. 45 of 2023. New Delhi: Government of India.
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. 2023. The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Act No. 47 of 2023. New Delhi: Government of India.
Nathulal v State of Madhya Pradesh. 1966. AIR 1966 SC 43. Supreme Court of India.
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v State of Maharashtra. 1984. AIR 1984 SC 1622; (1984) 4 SCC 116. Supreme Court of India.
Singh, Abhinav. 2025. “Speaking Law: Karakia and the Juridical Semiotics of Authority in Aotearoa New Zealand.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 39 (6): 1867–1886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-025-10400-x.
Singh, Abhinav. 2026. “Burial as Law: Tikanga Māori and the Semiotic Limits of Legal Recognition in Aotearoa New Zealand.” International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 39 (2): 761–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-025-10358-w.
State of Maharashtra v Mayer Hans George. 1965. AIR 1965 SC 722; (1965) 1 SCR 123. Supreme Court of India.
State of Rajasthan v Shera Ram. 2012. (2012) 1 SCC 602; AIR 2012 SC 1. Supreme Court of India.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Oxford Law Review

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Content published by Oxford Law Review is made available subject to the copyright and licensing terms applicable to the individual article.
Unless otherwise stated on the article page, the following terms apply:
1. Copyright
Copyright in published articles remains subject to the rights and terms specified for the respective publication. Authors and users should respect all applicable copyright and intellectual property laws.
2. Use of Published Material
Published articles may be accessed, read, cited and referenced for legitimate scholarly, educational and research purposes, subject to applicable copyright and licensing restrictions.
3. Reproduction
Reproduction, redistribution, adaptation or commercial use of published material is permitted only where expressly authorised by the applicable licence or by the relevant copyright holder.
4. Citation and Attribution
Any permitted use of material published by Oxford Law Review must provide appropriate bibliographic attribution, including the author, article title, Journal name and publication details, and a persistent link to the original article where available.
5. Third-Party Material
Material belonging to third parties, including photographs, illustrations, tables, datasets or other copyrighted content, may be subject to separate copyright or licensing conditions. Users are responsible for obtaining any permission required for such use.
6. Author Rights
Authors retain such rights as are provided under the applicable publication and licensing agreement. The specific rights applicable to each article are indicated with the published work where appropriate.
7. Changes to Licensing Terms
Oxford Law Review may update its licensing terms from time to time. The terms applicable to a published article will be those stated with or otherwise governing that article.
For the licensing status of a particular article, please refer to the licence information displayed on its publication page.