Under what circumstances the accused person can be convicted only based on the Actus Reus support your answer with relevant example from the penal code?

In certain circumstances, a person can be convicted based solely on the Actus Reus (the physical act of committing a crime) without the need to prove the accompanying Mens Rea (the intent or mental state behind the act). This is known as strict liability.

One example of strict liability in the penal code is found in traffic offenses. For instance, in many jurisdictions, a person can be convicted of speeding based solely on evidence that they were driving over the posted speed limit, without needing to prove that they intended to speed or were aware of the speed limit. This is because speeding is considered a strict liability offense, where the act of driving over the speed limit is enough to establish guilt.

Another example can be found in the possession of certain controlled substances. In some jurisdictions, possession of certain drugs is considered a strict liability offense, meaning that a person can be convicted based solely on the act of possessing the drug, without needing to prove that they intended to possess it or were aware of its presence.

Overall, strict liability offenses are typically reserved for cases where public safety is a primary concern and where it is deemed necessary to hold individuals accountable for their actions regardless of their intent.