Ignorantia Facti Excusat and Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Ignorantia Facti Excusat

In the legal system of India, the principle of "Ignorantia Facti Excusat" states that ignorance of fact can serve as a valid excuse in certain situations. This principle offers a defense for individuals who have caused harm unintentionally due to a lack of knowledge or information.

Relevant Laws and Case Laws

Indian Penal Code

• The case of Chiranji vs. State presents a scenario where a widower named Chiranji, suffering from an abscess in his leg and temporarily insane due to injuries sustained from a fall, mistakenly killed his 12-year-old son, whom he believed to be a tiger while gathering leaves. Chiranji's belief was made in good faith, as he was incapable of knowing the nature of his actions at the time of the incident.
• This case can be analyzed in light of Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides immunity from liability for acts done by a person who, in good faith, believed themselves to be justified by law due to a mistake of fact, not a mistake of law. Chiranji's belief that he was attacking a tiger, and not a human being, was a mistake of fact made in good faith. Therefore, according to Section 79, he cannot be held guilty of any offence.
• The Indian Penal Code also states that no offence is committed by a person who, in good faith, believes themselves to be bound by law to perform an action, or who, due to a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, believes themselves to be bound by law to perform it.
• For instance, if a person witnesses what appears to be a murder and apprehends the suspect in good faith to bring them before the authorities, even if it later turns out the suspect acted in self-defence, the person apprehending them has not committed an offence, as they acted under a mistake of fact, not law.

Contracts

• The principle of mistake of fact, as illustrated in the case of State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi, provides immunity from liability when an individual acts under a mistaken belief about a factual circumstance. In this case, the accused, while guarding their field, shot an arrow at what they believed to be a bear. However, the object turned out to be a person, resulting in their death. The court found the accused not liable for the death, granting them immunity under the principle of mistake of fact, as their belief was made in good faith.
• In the Indian Contract Act of 1872, a contract is deemed void when both parties to the agreement are mistaken about a matter of fact. This means that if both parties are under a mutual misconception regarding a key aspect of the contract, it lacks the necessary consensus ad idem or meeting of the minds required for a valid contract. As a result, the contract is considered void from the outset. This provision ensures that agreements entered into under a fundamental misunderstanding of factual circumstances do not bind the parties involved.

Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse

• Meaning of "Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat": This Latin phrase signifies that not knowing the law is not a valid defense. It implies that individuals are expected to be aware of and comply with the law, regardless of their awareness of it.
• Application in Indian Legal System: In India, legal practices were significantly influenced by British law during the colonial era. The concept of "Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat" was generally upheld in Indian courts. However, there have been instances where courts have acknowledged mistakes of law under specific conditions.
• Case Example - Mohammad Ali v. Sri Ram Swarup: In this case, the court ruled that ignorance or mistake of the law, even if made in good faith, is not a valid defense. However, in certain situations, it might be considered as a mitigating factor. Furthermore, the arrest of an individual without a warrant is unjustified even if the person was unaware of the law.
• Protection Under Indian Laws: The Indian Penal Code, 1860 offers safeguards under Sections 76 and 79 for individuals who make errors of fact in good faith. Nevertheless, this protection does not extend to mistakes of law.
• Example - Travelling Without a Ticket: If a person is apprehended for traveling on a train without a ticket, they cannot use ignorance of the law as a defense and will face punishment under Section 138 of The Indian Railways Act, 1989.
• Provisions in Contracts: As per The Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract cannot be invalidated due to misunderstandings regarding Indian laws. This implies that parties to a contract cannot seek relief based on ignorance of Indian law.
• Illustration - Mistake in Contract: For instance, if Company A agrees to sell a mixture containing 45% Sulphuric acid to Company B, but the law permits only mixtures with up to 30% Sulphuric acid, the contract will be void due to a mistake of law.
• Tort Law Overview: Tort law is a segment of civil law addressing harm inflicted by one individual on another or their property. Defendants in tort law cases may utilize various defenses to evade liability for the harm caused.
• General Defenses in Tort Law: Common defenses in tort law encompass consent, contributory negligence, and necessity, among others. The principles of "Ignorantia Facti Excusat" and "Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat" are relevant to these defenses.

Conclusion

• Ignorantia Facti Excusat: This doctrine serves as a legal defense for individuals who commit actions in good faith, believing they are following the law. For example, if a person unknowingly purchases stolen goods, they may be excused under this principle.
• Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat: In contrast, this doctrine states that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense. Simply put, individuals are expected to know the law, and ignorance of it is not a justification for unlawful actions.