Section 135 - Presumption of culpable mental state
Section 135 - Understanding Presumption of Culpable Mental State
Section 135 deals with the legal concept of presuming a "culpable mental state" in criminal cases. When someone is accused of a crime under this Act, the court automatically assumes that the person had a guilty mind, meaning they had intention, motive, knowledge, or a belief related to the crime. However, the accused has the opportunity to defend themselves by proving that they did not actually have this guilty mindset regarding the act they are being charged with. This means the burden of proof shifts to the accused to demonstrate their lack of a culpable mental state. The section clarifies that for a fact to be considered proven, the court must believe it exists beyond a reasonable doubt, not just because it seems more likely than not. Essentially, the accused must provide strong evidence to counter the presumption of guilt in their mental state.
Note: It is an AI generated summary for reference purpose only.
135. Presumption of culpable mental state
In any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
Explanation .-For the purposes of this section,-
(i) the expression " culpable mental state " includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact, and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact;
(ii) a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.
