Mistake of law and Mistake of fact

Mistake of law and Mistake of fact: Section 76 and 79:

One of the cardinal rules of criminal law is:

Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat

Which means, Ignorance of fact is an excuse but not the Ignorance of law?

This rule is contained in Sec-76 and 79.

According to Sec-76, a person who believes in himself to be bound by the law is excused if he does an act under mistake of fact but not under the mistake of law.

'Mistake' is a slip made not by design but by mischance. It is an error that results from unintentional act or omission. Hence, mistake of fact is considered a good defense.

E.g.

1) 'A' a soldier fires on a mob by the orders of the Superior officers as per law. A is not guilty.

2) A, a police officer, arrests Z, believing, in good faith that he is the person required. He is not guilty.

In R

V

 Tolson

Mrs.Tolson was charged with Bigamy as she had married an icon husband. Her defense was that Mr.Tolson, her first husband could not be traced for over seven years despite all reasonable means to search adopted. There was not men’s rea.Hence, it was held that she was not guilty. 'Mistake of the fact is an excuse' the court declared.

In R

V

 Prince

The accused was charged with kidnapping Annie Phillips, a girl under 16 years of age.

The plea of the accused that the girl looked to be above 16 was rejected by the court and he was held guilty. His reasonable belief as to her age was no legal defense.

According to Sec-79, an act done by a person, who believes in himself to be justified by law, is excused. However, ignorance of law is no excuse but mistake of fact in good faith is an excuse.

1) A, a police officer sees Z commit an offence which appears to be murder. A, in good faith exercise his powers under Cr. P.C. arrests Z. It turns out that there was no murder. It was Held that Z is not guilty as he is justified by Saw.

2) A. a police constable, saw B carrying, three pieces of cloth, suspected them to be stolen and questioned him, B gave no satisfactory answers. Hence, he arrested him, but the Inspector released him. B prosecuted the constable for wrongful confinement. It was Held that, constable is not guilty. There was a mistake of fact that the Constable was justified by law to enquire B.

In Chirangi

 V

 State

Accused in "delusion" took his son as tiger and killed him. He was protected under Sec-79.

In Ram Bahadur

V

 State of Orissa

 Killing a person as ghost was excused in the set of circumstances of the case