send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
Which is not an ingredient in means rea:
Strict or absolute liability
Public nuisance
Ignorance of law is no excuse – maxim
All are correct.
- Strict or absolute liability: This doctrine applies where liability is imposed without proof of mens rea (guilty mind/intent). No need to prove intention or knowledge.
- Public nuisance: Not an ingredient of mens rea. It’s an offence, not a mental state or requisite intent.
- Ignorance of law is no excuse – maxim: This is a legal maxim (ignorantia juris non excusat) saying a person can’t escape liability by claiming unawareness of the law, but it’s not a component of mens rea.
- All are correct: This is not accurate because the options listed are NOT ingredients of mens rea.
Correct Answer: Option 4 is NOT correct. "Strict or absolute liability" (Option 1) is NOT an ingredient of mens rea.
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses