Judicial Services/ HJS/APO : Indian Penal Code- Mistake of Fact (Ss. 76 & 79)
A bonafide and reasonable mistake of fact is a good defence under criminal law. The defence as to mistake of fact is based on common law maxim ignorantia facti doth excusat (i.e. ignorance of fact is an excuse). The mistake of fact must be in conformity with the commends of law.
Mistake of law: On the other hand, mistake of law is no defence under criminal law. It is based on another common law maxim ignorantia juris non excusat (i.e. ignorance of law is no excuse) and everybody is supposed to know the law of the land. It is no defence that the mistake of law is done in good faith.
Provisions under IPC: Sections 76 and 79 are applicable to mistake of fact.
Bound by Law: Section 76 provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.
Illustration: A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. A has committed no offence.
Illustration: A, an officer of a Court of Justice, being ordered by that Court to arrest Y, and after due enquiry, believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. A has committed no offence.
Justified by Law: Section 79 provides that nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.
Illustration: A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise, to the best of his judgment exerted in good faith, of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending murderers in the fact, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence, though it may turn out that Z was acting in self-defence.
Thus from the above, we find that the mistake itself is not excusable unless—
- it is done in good faith and without guilty mind
- it is reasonable one and must be of such a character to be supposed to be real in the given circumstances
- it is related to fact and not to matters of law.
Section 76 Vs. 79: The two sections have no substantial difference except the use of phrases “bound by law” under Section 76 and “justified by law” under Section 79. Both sections admit that ignorance of law is no excuse.
Case laws:
- Vs. Tolson [(1889) 23 QBD 168] is a leading case on mistake of fact wherein Mrs. Tolson was acquitted of bigamy as she remarried on a reasonable belief that her husband had died.
- Vs. Prince [(1875) 2 CCR 154] : In this case, the accused was held to be guilty of abduction of 16 years old girl. The accused could not get the defence of mistake of fact as to the age of a girl who was just 16 while the accused believed her to be of 18 years as the accused act was malafide in itself.
* Prepared by Team LegalMines. Remaining contents on general exceptions shall be uploaded in sequential manner.
