Ignorantia Facti Excusat and Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat

In the legal system of India, the maxim “Ignorantia Facti Excusat” and “Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat” are important principles that are used to determine liability in various legal cases. These principles are particularly relevant in tort law, where individuals may be held responsible for injuries caused to others due to their negligent actions. 

Ignorantia Facti Excusat

“Ignorantia Facti Excusat” means that ignorance of fact is an excuse. This principle provides a defence for individuals who may have caused harm due to a lack of knowledge or information. For example, if a person was driving a car and accidentally hit a pedestrian who suddenly ran onto the road, the driver may be able to use “Ignorantia Facti Excusat” as a defence if they can prove that they did not see the pedestrian and could not have avoided the accident.

Relevant Laws and Case Laws

Indian Penal Code

The case of Chiranji vs. State involved a widower named Chiranji who had an abscess in his leg. While gathering “siadi” leaves with his 12-year-old son on a hillock, Chiranji fell on a stone and sustained injuries, which resulted in him becoming temporarily insane. Mistakenly thinking his son was a tiger, he killed him. Chiranji was deemed incapable of knowing the nature of his actions. The appellate court found him not guilty as he had no intention of committing a wrong. At the time of the attack, he believed in good faith that the object of the assault was not a human being, but a magical tiger.

This case can be analyzed in light of Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that an act done by a person justified by law or who, in good faith, believed themselves to be justified by law due to a mistake of fact, and not a mistake of law, is not considered an offence. Chiranji’s belief that he was attacking a tiger, and not a human being, was a mistake of fact made in good faith. Therefore, he cannot be held guilty of any offence.

The Indian Penal Code of 1860 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.

To illustrate this, consider the example of A witnessing what appears to them to be a murder committed by Z. A, in good faith and to the best of their judgment, apprehends Z to bring them before the appropriate authorities. A has not committed an offence, even if it turns out that Z was acting in self-defence because A acted under a mistake of fact.

Contracts

This concept is exemplified in the case of State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi, in which the accused while guarding their field, shot an arrow at a moving object in the belief that it was a bear. However, the object turned out to be a person, resulting in their death. The court found the accused not liable, granting them immunity under the principle of mistake of fact.

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.

Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat

“Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat” means that ignorance of the law is no excuse. This principle places the responsibility on individuals to know and follow the law, regardless of whether they were aware of the law or not. In other words, a person cannot avoid liability by claiming that they did not know the law.

Relevant Laws and Case Law

Indian Penal Code

In India, the legal system was greatly influenced by British rule and the English common law was used to settle disputes. Thus, the maxim of “Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat” was also considered to apply in Indian courts. However, there have been some cases where the courts have recognized the concept of mistake of law in certain circumstances.

In the case of Mohammad Ali v. Sri Ram Swarup, the court held that mistake or ignorance of the law, even if in good faith, is not a valid defence. However, it may still be considered as a mitigating factor in some cases. Additionally, the arrest of a person without a warrant is not justified even if the person was ignorant of the law.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides protection under Sections 76 and 79 for individuals who make mistakes of fact in good faith. However, it does not extend this protection to mistakes of law. 

For instance, a person caught travelling on a train without a ticket cannot claim ignorance of the law as a defence and will be punished under Section 138 of The Indian Railways Act, 1989.

Contracts

Similarly, The Indian Contract Act, 1872 states that a contract cannot be voided due to a mistake of the parties in understanding the laws in force in India. This means that the parties to a contract cannot claim relief on the grounds of ignorance of Indian law. 

For example, if Company A agrees to sell Company B a mixture containing 45% Sulphuric acid, but the law of the country only allows the sale of mixtures containing up to 30% Sulphuric acid, the contract will be considered void due to a mistake of law.

Tort Law

Tort law is a branch of civil law that deals with harm caused by one person to another person or their property. In tort law cases, a defendant may use various defences to avoid liability for the harm caused. Some of the general defences in tort law include consent, contributory negligence, and necessity. Let us see how the principles of “Ignorantia Facti Excusat” and “Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat” apply to these general defences.

Conclusion

The legal doctrines of Ignorantia Facti Excusat and Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat play an important role in the Indian legal system. These principles provide a legal defence for individuals who commit acts in good faith and under the belief that they are acting in accordance with the law. While mistake of fact is generally a valid defence, mistake of law is not considered to be a defence in India.