PROJECT FILE

BHARTIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

TOPIC: MISTAKE OF FACT AND MISTAKE OF LAW

Submitted To: Submitted By:

Mr. Rushil Sharma Disha Jain

Professor B.Com. L.L.B.(Hons.)

UILS Roll No. 225/22

Section- D

Semester- V

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all the individuals and organisations that
directly or indirectly helped me in the completion of this project file.

I take this opportunity to extend my most sincere appreciation towards my Constitutional

Law Professor, Prof. Rushil Sharma for her constant support and guidance during the
preparation of this project, and her thorough suggestions and instructions that aided me in
culmination of this file on the topic Mistake of Fact & Mistake of Law

This file would have been lacking if not for her efforts.

Last but not the least, I extend my boundless regards to my friends and family who were a
constant source of encouragement during the entirety of this project.

Disha Jain

B. Com L.L.B. (Hons.)

Roll No- 225/22

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No. Particulars Page No.

1. Table of Abbreviation 4
2. Table of Cases 5-6
3. Introduction 7-9
4. Article 15 of the Indian Constitution 10
5. Clause (1) of Article 15 11-13

6. Clause (2) of Article 15 14-15

7. Clause (3) of Article 15 15-18
8. Clause (4) of Article 15 18-26
9. Clause (5) of Article 15 27-28
10. Clause (6) of Article 15 29
11. Consequence for being charged for Article 15 30
12. Conclusion 31
13. Bibliography 32

3
 TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Sr. No. Abbreviation Full Form

1. Etc. Et Cetera

2. v. Versus

3. AIR All India Reporter

4. SC Supreme Court

5. i.e., That is

6. Govt. Government

7. Estd. Established

8. IPC Indian Penal Code

9. G.O. Government order

10. HC High Court

4
 TABLE OF CASES

Sr. No. CASE LAW Page No.

1. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 8
2. Nainsukhdas v. State of Uttar Pradesh 12
3. D.P. Joshi v. State of Madhya Bharat 12
4. State of Rajasthan v. Thakur Pratap Singh 13
5. Chitra v. Union of India 13
6. Peoples Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI 15
7. Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P.B. Vijay Kumar 16
8. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 16
9. M.R. Balaji v. State of Mysore 16
10. Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay 16
11. Joseph Shine v. Union of India 17
12. Paramjit Singh v. State of Punjab 17
13. Salil Bali v. Union of India 18
14. State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan 18
15. Jagwant Kaur v. State of Maharashtra 19
16. Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana 19
17. P. Rajendran v. State of Madras 21
18. A. Periakaruppan v. State of Tamil Nadu 21
19. State of Andhra Pradesh v. U.S.V. Balaram 21
20. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pradeep Tandon 21
21. K.C. Vasanth Kumar v. State of Karnataka 22
22. K.S. Jayasree v. State of Kerala 22
23. Arti v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 22
24. Suneel Jatley v. State of Haryana 22
25. Janaradhan Subbaraya v. State of Mysore 23
26. Guntur Medical College v. Y. Rohan Rao 23
27. A.I.I.M.S. Stn. Union v. A.I.I.M.S. 25

5
28. Sadhna Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh 25
29. Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University 26
30. Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board 26
31. K.P. Manu v. Scrutiny Committee 26
32. Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India 28
33. Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. 28
Union of India
34. Punnet Gulati v. State of Kerala 28
35. Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India 29

6
 INTRODUCTION
In criminal law, a mistake is generally defined as an unintentional error regarding the
understanding of facts or the law. Mistakes are considered significant because they can affect
the determination of a defendant's culpability or guilt. The concept of a mistake, particularly
mistakes of fact and mistakes of law, is essential in evaluating whether a person should be
held liable for a crime. These two types of mistakes play different roles in legal defenses, and
their treatment in the legal system highlights the importance of intent, or mens rea, in
criminal liability.

The Concept of Mistake in Law

A mistake in law refers to an individual's incorrect belief about a fact or a legal principle that
leads them to engage in a particular act. Mistakes are considered in criminal law when they
affect the mens rea or guilty intent, which is required to hold someone criminally liable for
an offense. Mistakes can be categorized into two primary types: mistakes of fact and
mistakes of law. These mistakes influence whether or not an individual can be excused for
their actions.

Gideon Yaffe, in his work titled *Excusing Mistakes of Law* (2009), delves into the
intricate details of mistakes in the legal domain and argues for the "asymmetry" between the
excusing force of mistakes of fact and mistakes of law. He explores why, in some cases,
mistakes of law do not provide a legal excuse, while mistakes of fact may exonerate the
defendant.

Yaffe's distinction revolves around the treatment of mistakes in the legal and moral domains.
He suggests that legal desert—the concept of deserving punishment based on legal principles
—differs from moral desert, which is grounded in moral wrongdoing. Yaffe's paper provides
a critical lens through which we can explore when and why mistakes, particularly mistakes of
law, serve as legal defenses.

The Difference Between Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law

7
  MISTAKE OF FACT: A mistake of fact occurs when a person, in good faith,
believes a certain fact to be true, but it turns out to be incorrect. This defense is rooted
in the Latin maxim, ignorantia facti excusat, meaning ignorance of fact excuses. In
criminal law, if the mistake is reasonable and negates the criminal intent (mens rea), it
can serve as a valid defense. The mistake must be such that, if the facts were as the
person believed, their actions would have been legal.

For example, if someone takes property believing it to be theirs, but it actually

belongs to someone else, they may invoke a mistake of fact defense, as there was no
intent to commit theft.

 MISTAKE OF LAW: A mistake of law occurs when a person misunderstands or is

ignorant of the law. Unlike mistakes of fact, ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance
of the law is no excuse) is the principle that governs mistakes of law. This principle
reflects the idea that individuals are expected to know the law and cannot escape
liability simply by claiming ignorance. However, there are certain exceptions where a
mistake of law may be excused, such as when the law was not published, when a
statute is overturned, or when a person acts based on an official interpretation of the
law that is later invalidated.

Yaffe explores the philosophical underpinnings of why mistake of law generally does not
excuse criminal conduct, emphasizing that the law operates independently from the moral
domain. He suggests that, in many cases, a person who commits an act under a mistaken
understanding of the law is still deserving of punishment from a legal perspective, even if
they are morally blameless.

Sections 76 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) ,now section 14 and 17 of Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita,2023.

Under Indian law, Sections 76 and 79 of the IPC, section 14 and 17 of BNS deal with the
defenses of mistake of fact and mistake of law, respectively. Both sections provide a legal

8
framework for excusing individuals from criminal liability if their actions were based on a
reasonable and genuine mistake of fact or law.

- Section 76 (IPC) & Section 14 (BNS) : MISTAKE OF LAW – This section excuses
individuals who believe, due to a mistake of fact and not law, that they were bound by law to
perform a certain act. The act done in good faith, based on this belief, is excused. However,
this provision does not extend to mistakes of law, in line with the maxim ignorantia juris
non excusat.

- Section 79 : MISTAKE OF LAW – This section provides immunity to individuals

who, by reason of a mistake of fact, genuinely believe they were justified by law in doing a
particular act. Like Section 76, the key factor here is the good faith belief in the factual
circumstances, which, if true, would have justified the action.

Both sections highlight the importance of good faith in determining whether an individual
should be excused from criminal liability. The primary difference between Sections 76 and 79
is that Section 76 applies when the person believes they are bound by law to act, while
Section 79 applies when the person believes they are justified in their actions based on the
facts as they understand them.

9
Mistake of fact

Mistake of Fact: Detailed Explanation

Definition and Explanation

A mistake of fact occurs when an individual misunderstands a material fact relating to the
situation or circumstances in which an action is performed. This mistake may negate the
intention or "mens rea" required for the commission of a crime. As a defense in criminal law,
a mistake of fact can exonerate an accused if it is proven that the accused’s actions were
based on a genuine misunderstanding of the factual situation. The mistaken belief must be
reasonable, and it must relate to facts, not to the law.

In legal terms, a mistake of fact negates the existence of the mental element of the crime
(mens rea), making the act involuntary or non-intentional. Section 79 of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC), which governs the defense of mistake of fact, states that "nothing is an offense
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."

Legal Maxim: "Ignorantia Facti Excusat"

The maxim "Ignorantia facti excusat" (ignorance of fact excuses) underpins the defense of
mistake of fact. This principle establishes that a genuine, reasonable mistake about facts that
negate the intention behind an act can provide a valid defense. The law does not punish

10
individuals for errors they make in good faith about the facts, provided their actions would
have been legal had the facts been as they believed.

For instance, if a person accidentally takes another’s bag, believing it to be their own, they
may be excused from liability because they acted without criminal intent and based on an
honest mistake of fact.

Conditions for Applicability of Mistake of Fact

For the defense of mistake of fact to apply, several conditions must be met:

1. The State of Belief Would Justify the Act: The mistaken belief about the facts must be
such that, if the facts were true, the action taken would have been legal. For example, if
someone believed in good faith that they were entitled to property that actually belonged to
another, they would not be guilty of theft.

2. The Mistake Must Be Reasonable: The mistake should be one that a reasonable person
could have made under the same circumstances. A person cannot claim a mistake of fact
defense for unreasonable or negligent misunderstandings.

3. Good Faith: The mistake must be made in good faith. This means the person must act with
honest intentions, with due care, and without intending to break the law. For example, if a
person genuinely believes they are entitled to something because of mistaken facts and acts
accordingly, they may be excused.

4. Must Relate to Fact and Not Law: The defense applies strictly to mistakes of fact and not
to mistakes of law. The person must have misunderstood a factual situation rather than the
legal consequences of their actions. This is in contrast to the maxim "ignorantia juris non
excusat", which means ignorance of the law is no excuse.

11
Illustrations and Hypothetical Examples

1. Example of Mistake of Fact:

- A mistaken animal: Suppose A, who owns a black Labrador, regularly takes his dog to
the park. One day, after losing sight of his dog for a few minutes, A takes home another black
Labrador, mistaking it for his own. Here, A has not committed theft because he genuinely
believed the dog to be his own—a mistake of fact. His actions were not based on any criminal
intent.

2. Example of Mistake of Fact in a Crime:

- Mistaken identity: A police officer is instructed to arrest X for a crime. After a diligent
inquiry, the officer mistakenly arrests Y, believing Y to be X. This is a clear case of a mistake
of fact, and the officer is protected by law because they acted in good faith under the
mistaken belief that Y was X.

3. Example of a Reasonable Mistake:

- Age-related mistake: A shopkeeper sells alcohol to a customer who looks and behaves
like an adult. The customer shows a convincing but false ID proving they are over 18 years of
age, but they are actually underage. In this case, the shopkeeper has made a mistake of fact,
believing the customer to be of legal drinking age based on reasonable evidence. The
shopkeeper may avoid liability for selling alcohol to a minor under this defense.

R v Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168

- Facts: In this case, the defendant married a man in 1880. Her husband later disappeared,
and she was informed that he had been lost at sea and was presumed dead. After waiting for
seven years, she remarried, believing in good faith that her husband had died. When her
original husband returned alive, she was charged with bigamy.

12
 - Decision: The court held that Tolson was not guilty of bigamy because her belief in her
husband's death was reasonable and made in good faith. The defense of mistake of fact
applied because the mistake negated the intent to commit the crime.

2. R v Prince (1875) 2 LRCC 154

- Facts: The defendant took an underage girl without her parents' consent, believing her to
be over the age of 16, which was the legal age for consent. He did not verify her age
adequately.

- Decision: The court ruled that Prince was guilty of kidnapping because his mistake was
not made in good faith. He had failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain the true age of the
girl. This highlights the importance of reasonableness in applying the mistake of fact defense.

3. State of Orissa v Khoraghasi (1978 CR LJ 1305)

- Facts: In this case, the accused, while protecting his land, shot an arrow at what he
believed to be a bear. Unfortunately, the arrow struck and killed a person instead.

- Decision: The court excused the accused based on the defense of mistake of fact. He
genuinely believed the object he shot was a bear and acted in self-defense to protect his
property. His mistake was both honest and reasonable, making him eligible for the defense.

4. Chirangi v State of Madhya Pradesh (1952 CRILJ 1212)

- Facts: A father killed his son under the mistaken belief that his son was an animal
attacking him. This was a tragic mistake of fact.

- Decision: The court accepted the father’s plea of mistake of fact, noting that he genuinely
believed his life was in danger and that he had no criminal intent.

Application of Mistake of Fact in Criminal Law

13
In criminal law, the mistake of fact defense serves as a shield against liability, but it is
essential that the defendant’s actions are both honest and reasonable. The courts carefully
examine whether the mistake was genuine, whether the defendant acted in good faith, and
whether they exercised reasonable care in ascertaining the truth.

The defense cannot be used where the mistake is unreasonable or where the accused fails to
exercise due care and caution. For instance, in Dhaki Singh v State (AIR 1955 All 379), the
accused mistook a man for a thief and shot him. The court ruled that his actions were not
justified because he failed to take reasonable steps to apprehend the supposed thief before
resorting to violence. This case illustrates the limitations of the mistake of fact defense.

Mistake of law

Overview of Mistake of Law

14
Definition and Explanation

A mistake of law occurs when a person misunderstands or is ignorant of the legal rules that
apply to a specific situation. In legal terms, it refers to a misapprehension or lack of
knowledge regarding the law. Unlike a mistake of fact, which can sometimes excuse
criminal liability, a mistake of law generally does not provide a defense. This is because the
legal principle "ignorantia juris non excusat" (ignorance of the law is no excuse) applies
universally.

In the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 76 is often cited when discussing mistakes of law.
Section 76 provides a defense for individuals who, by reason of a mistake of fact, in good
faith believe that they are bound by law to do something. However, this provision explicitly
excludes mistakes of law, reaffirming the general legal principle that ignorance of the law
does not excuse criminal conduct.

---

Legal Maxims: "Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat"

The legal maxim "Ignorantia juris non excusat" is fundamental to the treatment of mistakes of
law. It translates to "ignorance of the law is no excuse," meaning that individuals cannot
escape liability for a crime simply because they did not know that their actions were illegal.
The rationale behind this principle is that, in order to maintain an orderly society, individuals
are expected to know the laws governing their actions, and claiming ignorance would
undermine the rule of law.

15
The maxim applies to various areas of law, including criminal law, civil law, and
administrative law. Under the IPC, Section 76 emphasizes that a mistake of law cannot be
used to absolve a person of criminal responsibility.

---

Situations Where Mistake of Law May Apply

Although ignorance of the law is generally not a valid defense, there are limited situations
where a mistake of law can provide an exception. These exceptions are narrowly defined and
often relate to circumstances where the law was ambiguous or not properly communicated.

1. Law Not Published

- If a law has not been published or made accessible to the public, an individual may claim
that they were unaware of the law and therefore should not be held accountable for violating
it. For instance, if the government passes a new regulation but fails to publish it officially or
communicate it effectively to the public, individuals affected by the regulation could
potentially invoke this defense.

2. Reliance on a Statute Later Overturned

- If a person acts in accordance with a statute that is later declared unconstitutional or

overturned by a court, they may be excused from liability if their actions were based on the
belief that the statute was valid at the time. In this case, the individual relied on a law that
was considered legitimate when they acted.

3. Reliance on a Judicial Decision

- If a person acts based on a legal interpretation made by a court that is later reversed or
overruled, they may have a defense under the mistake of law. This situation arises when the

16
individual reasonably relies on a judicial decision to guide their conduct, only for the decision
to be invalidated later.

4. Reliance on Official Interpretation

- In some cases, individuals may rely on the interpretation of a law given by an appropriate
public official, such as a government regulator or legal authority. If the interpretation later
turns out to be incorrect, the person may be able to invoke the defense of mistake of law.
However, this defense is often limited to situations where the reliance was reasonable and
made in good faith.

---

Key Cases

Several cases have explored the concept of mistake of law and its implications for criminal
liability. Below are key cases that provide insight into how courts handle the defense of
mistake of law.

1. R v Bailey (1800)

- Facts: In this case, the accused was a sailor who had been away at sea when a new law
was passed in England. Upon returning, he was charged with violating the new law. Bailey
argued that he was unaware of the law, as it had been enacted while he was out of the country.

- Decision: The court held that ignorance of the law was not a valid defense. Despite the
fact that Bailey could not have known about the new statute, the court ruled that he was still
liable for the violation. This case emphasizes the principle that individuals are expected to
comply with the law, regardless of whether they are aware of it.

2. R v Wheat & Stock (1921)

17
 - Facts: In this case, the accused, an illiterate man, believed that he had been granted a
divorce by his lawyer. Relying on this belief, he remarried. However, his first wife later
charged him with bigamy when it was revealed that the divorce had not been finalized.

- Decision: The court convicted the accused, ruling that his belief in the validity of the
divorce was based on a mistake of law. The court emphasized that ignorance of the law is not
an excuse and that the defendant should have taken more steps to confirm the legality of the
divorce before remarrying.

3. Grant v Borg (1982)

- Facts: The defendant in this case was prosecuted under the Immigration Act 1971 for
staying beyond the time limit of his leave to remain in the country. He claimed that he
misunderstood the law and believed that he was entitled to stay.

- Decision: The court rejected his defense, holding that a mistake of law could not excuse
his violation of the immigration rules. The case reaffirmed the principle that
misunderstanding or ignorance of immigration laws does not provide a defense.

4. Mohammad Ali v Sri Ram Swarup (1965)

- Facts: In this case, a head constable arrested an individual without proper legal grounds,
claiming that he was unaware of the requirements for a valid arrest.

- Decision: The court held that ignorance of the law, even in good faith, was not a defense.
The constable was found guilty of unlawful arrest, as he had failed to follow the legal
procedure despite his claim of misunderstanding the law.

---

Application of Mistake of Law in Criminal Law

18
In general, mistake of law is not considered a valid defense in criminal law. This is because
the legal system operates under the presumption that all individuals are aware of the laws that
apply to them. However, as discussed earlier, there are limited exceptions where a mistake of
law may be excused, such as when the law has not been published, or an individual relies on
an official interpretation of the law.

Illustration:

A person, A, is charged with violating a new environmental regulation that requires certain
permits for industrial waste disposal. A argues that the regulation was not made publicly
available and therefore was unaware of the requirement. If the court finds that the law was
not properly published, A may be excused under the principle of mistake of law due to lack of
proper communication of the legal requirement.

---

Mistake of Law in the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

Section 76 of the IPC addresses the issue of mistake of law in relation to mistake of fact.
While Section 79 deals with mistakes of fact, Section 76 clarifies that individuals acting
under a mistaken belief that they are legally required to do something can only be excused if
the mistake relates to a factual circumstance and not a legal principle. The text of Section 76
states, "Nothing is an offense which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a
mistake of fact and not by reason of mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be bound
by law to do it."

This section highlights the strict distinction between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law in
Indian criminal jurisprudence. Mistake of fact can excuse criminal liability if the mistake is
reasonable and made in good faith, but a mistake of law does not provide the same protection.

19
---

Conclusion

The principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse underpins the legal framework governing
mistakes of law. While there are limited exceptions to this rule, courts generally hold
individuals accountable for their actions even if they are unaware of the specific laws
governing their conduct. Cases like R v Bailey and R v Wheat & Stock illustrate the
difficulties faced by defendants attempting to claim mistake of law as a defense. Ultimately,
the law places a heavy burden on individuals to understand and comply with the laws of their
country, and mistakes of law are seldom accepted as an exculpatory defense.

comparison

Comparison of Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law

The concepts of mistake of fact and mistake of law are two fundamental defenses in criminal
law, but they operate very differently. While both involve an individual's misunderstanding or
ignorance, the law treats them distinctively due to their nature and the societal importance of
ensuring that individuals understand legal rules. Below is a detailed comparison of these two

20
defenses, followed by a discussion on their implications and the significance of good faith in
both.

---

Tabular Comparison: Mistake of Fact vs. Mistake of Law

| Feature | Mistake of Fact | Mistake of Law

|

|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------
------------------------|

| Definition | Misunderstanding of a material fact related to the act. |

Misunderstanding or ignorance of the legal principles. |

| Defense in Law | Can be a valid defense if the mistake is reasonable and made in
good faith. | Generally not accepted as a defense, with rare exceptions. |

| Legal Maxim | "Ignorantia facti excusat" (Ignorance of fact excuses). | "Ignorantia

juris non excusat" (Ignorance of law does not excuse). |

| Applicable Sections in IPC| Section 76 and 79 of IPC. | Section 76 of IPC

(but excludes mistake of law). |

| Focus | Involves factual misunderstandings that negate mens rea. | Involves

misunderstandings about the legal rules governing an action. |

| Examples | Believing property belongs to you but it doesn’t (defense of mistake

of fact). | Claiming ignorance of the law that governs a crime (usually not excusable). |

| Good Faith Requirement | Must act in good faith, with honest intentions and reasonable
belief. | Good faith does not apply, as individuals are presumed to know the law. |

| Exceptions | Mistake must be reasonable and in good faith. | Rare exceptions:

law not published, reliance on overturned statute, reliance on official interpretation. |

21
---

Detailed Comparison

1. Nature of Mistake:

- Mistake of Fact: A mistake of fact occurs when a person misinterprets the factual
circumstances in which they are acting. For example, if someone believes they have
permission to enter a property but later finds out they didn’t, they can invoke the defense of
mistake of fact. If the mistake is reasonable and made in good faith, it can absolve the
individual of liability. This defense primarily affects the mens rea (the intent) required for a
crime, as the individual did not intend to break the law based on their understanding of the
facts.

- Mistake of Law: A mistake of law occurs when a person misinterprets or is unaware of the
legal rules applicable to their actions. For example, a person might claim they did not know
that their action (e.g., operating a business without a permit) was illegal. However, under the
principle "ignorantia juris non excusat", such ignorance does not excuse their liability.
Individuals are expected to know and follow the law, regardless of whether they have taken
the time to understand it.

2. Applicability as a Defense:

- Mistake of Fact: This defense can be used in cases where an individual’s mistaken belief
about a factual circumstance negates their criminal intent. Section 76 and 79 of the IPC allow
this defense, provided that the mistake is reasonable and made in good faith. This defense is
often invoked in crimes where mens rea is a critical component, such as theft, trespassing, or
abduction.

22
 - Mistake of Law: In contrast, a mistake of law is generally not a valid defense. Section 76
of the IPC explicitly excludes mistakes of law from being used to absolve a person from
criminal liability. The principle that ignorance of the law does not excuse is designed to
maintain order and ensure that individuals make an effort to understand the legal rules that
govern their behavior.

3. Examples in Criminal Law:

- Mistake of Fact: A shopkeeper sells alcohol to a minor believing the person to be of legal
drinking age based on a fake ID. The shopkeeper could potentially avoid liability under the
defense of mistake of fact, as their belief was reasonable and made in good faith.

- Mistake of Law: A business owner operates without the proper licenses and claims they
were unaware that the licenses were required. In this case, the defense of mistake of law
would not be accepted, as individuals are presumed to know the laws applicable to their
business.

4. Role of Reasonableness:

- Mistake of Fact: For the defense to be successful, the mistake must be reasonable. Courts
will assess whether a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have made the same
mistake. If the individual’s misunderstanding was unreasonable or careless, the defense will
not apply.

- Mistake of Law: Reasonableness is not a factor in most cases involving a mistake of law.
Even if the mistake was made in good faith and seemed reasonable under the circumstances,
it will not be accepted as a defense.

---

23
Significance of Good Faith

Good faith is a critical factor in determining whether a mistake of fact can serve as a valid
defense. Section 52 of the IPC defines good faith as actions performed with due care and
attention. For an individual to successfully claim the defense of mistake of fact, they must
prove that their actions were undertaken with honest intentions and that they made a
reasonable effort to ascertain the truth.

1. Good Faith in Mistake of Fact:

- In cases involving mistake of fact, good faith plays a pivotal role. The person claiming the
defense must show that they genuinely believed in the facts they acted upon and that they
took reasonable steps to ensure those facts were correct. For instance, if someone purchases a
stolen item believing it to be legitimate property, they must show that they made a reasonable
effort to confirm the seller's ownership of the item.

- Case Example: In Chirangi v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952), the accused mistakenly
killed his son, believing him to be an animal attacking him. The court found that the accused
acted in good faith, genuinely believing his life was in danger, and therefore accepted the
defense of mistake of fact.

2. Good Faith in Mistake of Law:

- In contrast, good faith is largely irrelevant in cases of mistake of law. Even if a person acts
in good faith and genuinely believes they are following the law, the courts generally do not
accept this as a defense. The assumption is that all individuals are responsible for knowing
the laws that apply to their actions. Thus, a person’s honest belief in the legality of their
conduct does not absolve them of responsibility for violating the law.

- Case Example: In Grant v. Borg (1982), the accused exceeded the time limit of his leave
to remain in the country and claimed that he misunderstood the immigration laws. Despite his

24
honest mistake, the court held that ignorance of the law did not excuse his violation, and he
was held liable.

---

Exceptions to Mistake of Law

Though generally not accepted as a defense, there are limited exceptions where a mistake of
law might be excused:

1. Law Not Published: If the law has not been made accessible or published, individuals
may be excused for not knowing about it.

2. Reliance on Overturned Statute: If a person acts based on a statute that is later declared
unconstitutional or overturned, they may be excused from liability.

3. Reliance on Judicial Decision: If a person follows a judicial interpretation of a law that is

later overturned, they may invoke this as a defense.

4. Reliance on Official Interpretation: When individuals rely on official interpretations of

the law given by authorities, and those interpretations are later found to be incorrect, they
may be excused.

25
Judicial Interpretation and Case Laws on Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law

The defense of mistake of fact and mistake of law has been interpreted in various judicial
decisions both in India and internationally. Courts have had to carefully analyze whether the
mistake negates criminal intent and whether it is reasonable and made in good faith. This
section will explore significant Indian and international cases, followed by a critical analysis
of how courts interpret these defenses in modern law.

---

1. Indian Case Laws

a. Mistake of Fact in Indian Jurisprudence

In India, mistake of fact is recognized as a defense under Section 76 and Section 79 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC). These provisions protect individuals who commit an offense due to
a mistaken belief about a fact, provided that the belief is reasonable and in good faith. Several
Indian cases have explored the applicability of this defense.

1. Chirangi v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952 CRILJ 1212)

- Facts: The accused, a widower, was in the forest with his young son when he mistakenly
killed his son, believing him to be a tiger attacking him.

- Decision: The court accepted the defense of mistake of fact, stating that the accused acted
in good faith and with the genuine belief that he was defending himself from a wild animal.
The defense under Section 79 IPC was applicable, as there was no criminal intent (mens rea)
on the part of the accused.

26
2. State of Orissa v. Khoraghasi (1978 CR LJ 1305)

- Facts: The accused, while guarding his field, shot an arrow at what he believed to be a
bear. Unfortunately, the arrow struck and killed a person.

- Decision: The court accepted the defense of mistake of fact. The accused was under a
reasonable belief that he was defending his property from a wild animal, and his actions were
in good faith. The court recognized that such a mistake negated his criminal intent.

3. Dhaki Singh v. State (AIR 1955 All 379)

- Facts: The accused mistook a person for a thief and shot him, believing that he was
protecting his property.

- Decision: The court rejected the defense of mistake of fact, stating that the accused failed
to act with due care and caution before resorting to violence. The mistake was found to be
unreasonable, and the accused was held liable for his actions.

4. Keso Sahu and Ors. v. Saligram Shah (1977 CRILJ 1725)

- Facts: The accused, believing that the plaintiff’s residence was being used for smuggling
rice, brought a cart and cartman to the police station. The suspicion was later found to be
incorrect.

- Decision: The court accepted the defense of mistake of fact, holding that the accused acted
in good faith and genuinely believed that they were justified in reporting the suspected
offense. The court concluded that the mistake was reasonable and protected the accused from
liability.

5. State of West Bengal v. Shew Mangal Singh (AIR 1981 SC 1917)

- Facts: A subordinate police officer opened fire on a mob based on the orders of a superior
officer. The firing led to several deaths.

27
 - Decision: The court held that the subordinate officer was not liable because he was acting
in good faith under the command of a superior officer and believed that he was bound by law
to do so. The defense of mistake of fact was applicable.

---

b. Mistake of Law in Indian Jurisprudence

While mistake of fact can serve as a defense in Indian criminal law, mistake of law is
generally not accepted as a defense. Section 76 IPC explicitly states that a mistake of fact can
excuse liability, but a mistake of law cannot. However, there are limited exceptions where a
mistake of law might be considered.

1. Mohammad Ali v. Sri Ram Swarup (AIR 1965 All 161)

- Facts: The accused, a head constable, arrested an individual without following the proper
legal procedure. He claimed that he was unaware of the legal requirements for making an
arrest.

- Decision: The court rejected the defense of mistake of law, stating that ignorance of the
law, even in good faith, cannot be used as a defense. The head constable was found guilty of
unlawful detention, as he failed to follow the proper legal procedure.

2. Grant v. Borg (1982)

- Facts: The accused, a foreigner, overstayed his visa in India and claimed that he
misunderstood the immigration laws.

- Decision: The court ruled that the defense of mistake of law was not available. The
accused’s misunderstanding of immigration laws did not excuse his violation of visa
regulations, reaffirming that ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law does not
excuse).

28
---

2. International Case Laws

Several international cases have shaped the understanding of mistake of fact and mistake of
law in criminal law.

a. Mistake of Fact in International Jurisprudence

1. R v Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168 (United Kingdom)

- Facts: The defendant remarried, believing her first husband had died in a shipwreck. Her
husband later returned, and she was charged with bigamy.

- Decision: The court accepted the defense of mistake of fact, ruling that the defendant’s
belief in her husband’s death was reasonable and made in good faith. The defense negated the
criminal intent (mens rea), and the defendant was acquitted of bigamy charges.

2. R v Prince (1875) 2 LRCC 154 (United Kingdom)

- Facts: The defendant took a girl under the age of 16 without the parents’ consent,
believing that she was older than 16.

- Decision: The court rejected the defense of mistake of fact, stating that the defendant’s
failure to verify the girl’s age made his actions unreasonable. The court emphasized that the
mistake was not made in good faith, and the defendant was convicted.

b. Mistake of Law in International Jurisprudence

29
1. R v Bailey (1800) (United Kingdom)

- Facts: The defendant, a sailor, returned from sea unaware of a newly enacted law and was
charged with violating it.

- Decision: The court rejected the defense of mistake of law, holding that ignorance of the
law is no excuse. The defendant was convicted, and the court reaffirmed the principle of
ignorantia juris non excusat.

2. R v Wheat & Stock (1921) (United Kingdom)

- Facts: The accused, an illiterate man, believed he had been granted a divorce by his
lawyer. He remarried and was later charged with bigamy.

- Decision: The court ruled that the defendant’s belief in the validity of the divorce was
based on a mistake of law, not a mistake of fact. The defense was rejected, and the defendant
was convicted of bigamy.

3. People v. Marrero (1987) (United States)

- Facts: The defendant, a federal corrections officer, was arrested for carrying a firearm in a
New York City nightclub. He claimed that he misunderstood the state law, believing that as a
federal officer, he was allowed to carry the weapon.

- Decision: The court rejected the defense of mistake of law, ruling that ignorance or
misunderstanding of the law cannot excuse criminal behavior. The defendant’s conviction
was upheld, reinforcing the principle that individuals are expected to know the law.

---

3. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION

a. Indian Courts’ Approach

30
Indian courts have consistently held that mistake of fact can be a valid defense if it is
reasonable and made in good faith. However, courts scrutinize the circumstances surrounding
the mistake to ensure that the individual acted with due care and attention. Cases like
Chirangi v. State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Orissa v. Khoraghasi demonstrate the
courts’ willingness to accept a mistake of fact defense when the accused genuinely believes
that their actions are justified by the facts as they understand them.

On the other hand, mistake of law is rarely accepted as a defense in Indian courts. The courts
emphasize that ignorantia juris non excusat is a foundational principle in maintaining the rule
of law. Cases like Mohammad Ali v. Sri Ram Swarup and Grant v. Borg reaffirm that
individuals are presumed to know the law, and ignorance or misunderstanding of legal
principles does not absolve them of liability.

b. International Courts’ Approach

Internationally, the treatment of mistake of fact and mistake of law is largely consistent with
the Indian approach. Mistake of fact is accepted when it negates criminal intent, as seen in R
v Tolson and R v Prince. However, courts have been less lenient with mistake of law, as
evidenced by cases like R v Bailey and People v. Marrero. International courts uphold the
principle that ignorance of the law does not excuse criminal behavior, except in rare
circumstances where the law was not published or was overly ambiguous.

31
Other aspects

IMPACT ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The defense of mistake of fact and mistake of law plays a significant role in the criminal
justice system, particularly in shaping judicial decisions, protecting individuals from
wrongful convictions, and ensuring that the law is applied fairly. While these defenses offer
protection in certain situations, they also have their limitations, and criticisms have emerged
regarding their application in various legal systems.

---

1. Role of Mistake Defenses in Shaping Judgments

The defense of mistake of fact is essential in shaping judicial judgments, especially in cases
where the defendant's intention (mens rea) is central to the crime. Courts carefully assess
whether the accused acted based on an honest and reasonable mistake, which can mitigate or
negate their criminal liability. Similarly, the judicial treatment of mistake of law, though less
lenient, has also influenced how courts approach cases where defendants misunderstand legal
rules or regulations.

a. Mistake of Fact and its Impact

32
The recognition of mistake of fact as a defense has allowed courts to distinguish between
those who commit crimes with intent and those who act without the requisite criminal intent
due to an honest factual misunderstanding. For instance:

- In cases of theft or trespassing, where the accused mistakenly believes they have a right to
property, the courts can assess whether the belief was reasonable. If the mistake is found to be
genuine and made in good faith, the defendant can avoid conviction, as they lacked the
intention to commit the crime.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) through Sections 76 and 79, offers defendants the opportunity
to plead mistake of fact, provided they acted in good faith and their actions were justified
based on their understanding of the facts.

b. Mistake of Law and its Limited Impact

The mistake of law defense has a more limited application. Courts, both in India and
internationally, have been consistent in holding that ignorance of the law does not excuse
criminal behavior. The rationale behind this principle is that if mistake of law were accepted
widely, it could open the floodgates for frivolous defenses and undermine the legal system’s
authority.

However, in limited cases where the law is unclear, not published, or where the individual
reasonably relies on an official interpretation, courts may show some leniency. In these
instances, the judicial system balances maintaining the rule of law with ensuring fairness for
individuals who were misled by legal authorities.

---

33
2. Importance in Protecting Individuals from Wrongful Conviction

One of the most critical functions of the mistake defenses in the criminal justice system is
their ability to protect individuals from wrongful convictions. These defenses serve as a
safety net for individuals who, due to an honest and reasonable misunderstanding,
unintentionally violate the law.

a. Mistake of Fact as a Shield Against Wrongful Convictions

The defense of mistake of fact ensures that individuals are not unjustly convicted when they
lacked the necessary criminal intent (mens rea). For example:

- In cases of mistaken identity, such as a police officer arresting the wrong person due to a
factual misunderstanding, the officer’s actions can be excused if the mistake was reasonable
and made in good faith.

This defense is particularly valuable in cases involving self-defense, property disputes, and
age-related offenses (e.g., where a person believes that a minor is above the legal age of
consent).

By allowing individuals to present evidence of their factual misunderstanding, the legal

system ensures that only those who act with criminal intent are held accountable, thus
preventing miscarriages of justice.

b. Limited Protection under Mistake of Law

While mistake of law is rarely accepted as a defense, its limited application still serves a
protective function in cases where individuals are genuinely misled by ambiguous laws or
incorrect legal interpretations. For instance:

34
- In cases where a statute has been overturned or held unconstitutional, individuals who acted
based on the statute when it was still in force may be protected from criminal liability. This
prevents retroactive punishment and upholds the principle of fairness.

Moreover, in cases where the government fails to adequately publicize a new law or
regulation, individuals may be excused from liability if they can show that they were unaware
of the change due to the lack of publication.

---

3. Limitations and Criticisms of the Mistake Defense

While the mistake defenses play a crucial role in ensuring fairness and preventing wrongful
convictions, they are not without limitations and criticisms. Some argue that these defenses
can be misused or lead to inconsistent judicial outcomes, particularly when it comes to the
subjective nature of good faith and reasonableness.

A. LIMITATIONS OF THE MISTAKE OF FACT DEFENSE

1. Subjectivity of Good Faith and Reasonableness:

- One of the main criticisms of the mistake of fact defense is the subjective nature of good
faith and reasonableness. Courts often have to determine whether the defendant's belief was
genuinely held and whether a reasonable person in the same situation would have made the
same mistake. This can lead to inconsistent outcomes, as different judges may have varying
interpretations of what constitutes good faith and reasonableness.

- For example, in cases like Dhaki Singh v. State, where the accused mistook an innocent
person for a thief and shot them, the court found that the mistake was not reasonable, despite

35
the accused’s claim of good faith. This highlights the challenge of applying the defense
consistently.

2. Potential for Misuse:

- There is also the risk that individuals may attempt to misuse the defense of mistake of fact
by fabricating or exaggerating their misunderstanding of the facts. While courts scrutinize the
evidence to ensure that the mistake was genuine, the defense can sometimes be difficult to
refute, particularly in cases involving complex factual scenarios.

3. Limited Applicability:

- The mistake of fact defense is not applicable in cases of strict liability offenses, where the
law does not require proof of intent (mens rea). For example, in statutory rape cases, even if
the defendant believed the victim was of legal age, the defense is unlikely to succeed because
the law does not take intent into account in such offenses.

B. CRITICISMS OF THE MISTAKE OF LAW DEFENSE

1. Strict Application of Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat:

- The principle "ignorantia juris non excusat" has been criticized for being overly rigid,
particularly in cases where the law is unclear, complex, or subject to frequent changes. Critics
argue that expecting individuals to know all the laws that govern their behavior is unrealistic,
especially in areas like tax law, environmental regulations, or business licensing.

2. Lack of Protection in Ambiguous Situations:

- In some cases, the refusal to accept a mistake of law defense can lead to harsh results. For
instance, individuals who rely on outdated statutes or incorrect legal advice from government
officials may find themselves held liable for violating laws they genuinely believed they were

36
following. Critics argue that, in such cases, the mistake of law defense should be more
flexible to protect individuals from undue punishment.

3. Reliance on Official Interpretations:

- While the courts may allow the mistake of law defense in limited cases where the
individual relied on an official interpretation of the law, this exception is applied narrowly.
Critics contend that individuals who rely in good faith on government guidance or legal
opinions should be afforded more protection, especially when the law is ambiguous or poorly
communicated.

---

37
CONCLUSION

38
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS

WEBSITES

 https://blog.ipleaders.in
 https://lawbhoomi.com
 https://infinitylearn.com
 https://examarly.com
 https://theindianconstitution.com

39