Skip to main content

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

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Types of Punishments

Punishments: The punishments, to which the offenders are liable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code 1860, are: 1) Death Penalty or Capital Punishment 2) Life Imprisonment 3) Imprisonment a) Rigorous b) Simple 4) Forfeiture 5) Fine 1. Death Penalty or Capital Punishment: It is the most serious nature of punishment. Some Countries abolished it. It is awarded in India in certain exceptional cases. The offences which are punishable with death sentence under the Indian Penal code includes: a) Waging war against the Government of India (Sec-121) b) Abetting Mutiny that is actually committed (Sec-132) c) Giving or Fabricating false Evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death (Sec-194) d) Murder (Sec- 302) e) Abetment of Suicide of a minor or of a insane or of an intoxicated person (Sec-305) f) Attempt to Murder by a person under the sentence of Imprisonment for life, if hurt is caused (Sec-307) g) Punishment for repeat offenders (previously convicted for an offence punishable u...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of Private defence

The Right of Private defense: (Section 96 to 106): One of the fundamental principles of law is that every individual has a right to defend himself and his property. This is the doctrine of self-defense or self-preservation. Sec. 96 to 106 has recognized this rule and have provided for the limits within which it may be exercised. This may be discussed under two heads: a) Right of person b) Right of property 1. Right of person: A) Every person has a right to defend his own body and the body of any other person against any person. (Sec-97) B) Against a madman etc: The right extends in all circumstances against anyperson who is insane, drunk or who by a reason of youth immaturity is excused under law (Sec- 98) Eg: Z under madness attempts to kill A.A may defend and even kill Z if circumstances so warrant. C) Extension of the right: Sec-100 provides as follows :A person who is under a reasonable apprehension that his life is in danger,may to defend himself, voluntarily cause the death of th...
Post a Comment
Read more

UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, RIOT, AFFRAY

Unlawful Assembly (Section 141): Unlawful assembly is an assembly of 5 or more persons with the common object: 1)  to over-throw by criminal force the Government or the legislature or 2)  To resist the execution of any legal process 3)  To commit mischief (Sec-425), criminal trespass (441) 4)  To obtain property or right by criminal force or 5)  To criminally force a person to do an act which he is not bound to do, or to force him not to do an act which he is bound to do. If a person is a member of an unlawful assembly then that person is punishable. An assembly which is not unlawful in the beginning may become unlawful subsequently. The purpose or common object decides the nature of the assembly. Essentials: 1)  The essentials are that there should be five or more persons and there should be the common object as specified in Sec-141. 2)  This is different from common intention in Sec-34. For unlawful assembly prior meeting of minds is not essential. 3...
Post a Comment
Read more