Ignorantia facti excusat: Definition and Meaning

When The Court states the aforementioned maxim it means the offence or tort committed was under a misconception of facts, nevertheless the accused was led to believe he was under good faith commanded by the law.

This maxim takes a deeper dive as it raises the concept of ‘mistake of law’ and ‘mistake of facts’. Section 76 of IPC deals with the maxim and its subsequent concepts, which says the defence of mistake of facts can be excusable unlike the defence of mistake of laws. The above maxim is used in wide spectrum of laws starting from minor offences to non − bailable offences.

What is Ignorantia facti excusat?

Ignorantia Facti Excusat is a Latin maxim which translates to, ignorance of facts is excusable or mistake of a fact is an excuse. An offence by an accused is stated as ignorantia facti excusat when he/she has sincerity towards the law but became an offender due to the ignorance or mistake of facts.

Illustrations of Ignorantia Facti Excusat

A police officer learns that a gangster is operating a drug enterprise. Thought to be the culprit, he mistakenly arrests an innocent man while on his way to take down the mobster. In this instance, the officer is working in accordance with the law and may raise the defence of mistake of facts.

Important case laws

Mohammad Ali vs Sri Ram Swarup and Ors. on 16 October, 1963

A police officer learns that a mobster is engaged in the narcotics trade. He went to detain the gangster but instead detains an innocent man since he thinks the person is the suspect. In this instance, the officer is acting in accordance with the law and is entitled to use factual error as justification.

Chirangi vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1952)

A widower and his young son entered the forest in this case to gather "siadi" leaves. After some time had passed, his nephew found the kid missing and the accused dozing off under the tree. Later, the kid's body was discovered. Evidence revealed that the accused at the time was in a frame of mind where he imagined that a tiger was coming to attack him and that he had accidentally killed his son by mistaking him for the tiger. The court ruled that his immunity from culpability was due to a factual error.

State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi

In the case of State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi, the accused, while defending their land, shot an arrow at a moving object in the mistaken impression that it was a bear. This case serves as an example of this idea. The object, however, turned out to be a human being, which led to their demise. The defendants were granted immunity under the theory of mistake of fact since the court judged them not responsible.

Grant vs. Borg (1982)

In this instance, the individual was indicted under the Immigration Act of 1971 for exceeding the permitted length of stay. He cannot use the legal error defence in this situation.

Conclusion

In general, a legal error does not excuse breaking the law. Except for juveniles, lunatics, and mad persons, it is assumed that everyone is aware of and understands the law of the land. From the foregoing discussion, it may be seen that the proverb "Ignorantia facti excusat" refers to the idea that someone who commits an error is not automatically considered to have committed a wrong. These principles offer a legal justification for people who behave in good faith and with the thought that they are following the law. In India, mistake of law is not regarded as a defence, despite the fact that mistake of fact is typically a good one.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the saying about not knowing the law?

Ans: Ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defence to avoid culpability, according to the dictum "ignorantia juris non−excusat," which means "ignorance of the law is no excuse." The Court is deemed to assume that all parties are knowledgeable of the law. This Latin adage belongs to common law, as do its numerous legal ramifications.

Q: What are the laws regarding ignorantia facti excusat?

Ans: The Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, specifically addresses the laws of mistake of fact and mistake of law in Sections 76 and 79, respectively.