The article written by Ms Alka Bano is a legal practitioner in the Central Bar Association of Varanasi. I had completed my graduation in B.COM LL.B from Mahatma Gandhi Kasi Vidyapith and LL.M from National Law University, Jodhpur.
INTRODUCTION
In the realm of criminal justice, there are two types of mistakes that can serve as a legitimate defence in particular cases. These mistakes are:
- Mistakes pertaining to factual circumstances that is mistake of facts; and
- Mistakes concerning legal principles that is mistake of law
It’s important to note that not all criminal charges allow for the use of legal defences. However, if an Accused is able to successfully invoke such a defence, the charges brought against them will typically be dismissed. This is because, in order for a person to be convicted of a crime, the prosecution must prove all the elements of the crime they’ve been charged with beyond a reasonable doubt.
When an Accused is able to successfully assert a mistake of fact or mistake of law as a legal defence, it indicates that the prosecution will not be able to prove that the Accused had the requisite mental state for the crime they committed.
The mental state of a crime, also known as “mens rea,” refers to the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of the crime for which a defendant is accused. Therefore, a mistake defence could lead to the dismissal of charges against the Accused based on a lack of mens rea.
Asserting a defence based on a mistake of law can be challenging as the criminal justice system has a well-established principle that committing a crime out of ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse. So therefore, a mistake of law is not an excusable defence in the eyes of law.
MISTAKES OF FACT
Mistakes of facts and mistakes of law incorporates common law doctrine and based on the Latin maxim “Ignorantia Facti Excusat” and “Ignorantia Juris Non Excusat” means ignorance of fact is an excuse and ignorance of the law is no excuse.The concept of the mistakes of fact, if true, would ignore a mental state that is a component of the crime, the mistake of fact is a defence. A factual mistake could indicate that someone has committed the physical component in the form of any acts or omission in commission of an offence. They will not be held accountable for offences requiring mens rea because they were under a factual mistake and therefore never formed the necessary mens rea.Mistakes of fact supports the defences of justification.
DEFENCES IN PENAL LAWS
According to section 76 of Indian penal code it lays down that nothing is an offence which is done by reason of mistake of fact bound by law but not by mistake of law. Mistake of fact implies mistake as to true identities or mistake in sensory perception such as temporary distortion of imagination, like,In the case of R v. Tolson (1889) case, the accused wife was convicted for bigamy. It was held that at the time of the second marriage she bonafide believed her husband to be dead, her conviction was wrong.
In the case of State of Maharashtra vs Mayer Hans George AIR 1965 SC 722 held that good faith acts as defence under a mistake of fact.It is held under section 79 of Indian Penal Code that if anything done by a person who in good faith believes himself to be justified by the law is a defence under eyes of law. In simple words we can say that any factual mistake done by any person under legal obligation and which is justified by law is considered to be no offence in the eyes of law.
In the illustration that is related to an interrogation under section 79 of Indian Penal Code: During interrogation by a police constable, an accused questioned an individual who was walking early in the morning carrying three pieces of fabric under his arm, suspecting that he was transporting stolen goods. As he did not receive a satisfactory response and was denied permission to inspect, he took him into custody. Nevertheless, the Inspector released him. The High Court invalidated the verdict on the basis that the accused had acted in good faith under a misapprehension of fact that is a mistake of fact pursuant to Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code. It was evident that the accused acted in good faith when he began questioning the individual to ascertain the veracity of the situation.
DEFENCES IN CONTRACT LAWS
General Rule in relation to mistake is that where there is a consent obtained by mistake is not free consent in contract.That makes contract void.
Generally Mistake may operate upon two ways:
- It may defeat the consent altogether , or
- It may mislead the parties as to the purpose which they contemplated.
As same held in Indian Contract Act under section 20 which said that when both parties to an agreement are mistaken as a matter of fact that contract is said to be void because by virtue of section 13 of Indian Contract Act, if mistake prevents the consent itself, then there is no consensus ad idem and thus no contract.
Whereas a mistake of law that is any law in force in India is no defence by virtue of section 21 of Indian Contract. When both contracting parties commit a mistake of any law in force in outside Indian territory then it becomes a defence like mistake of fact and is void but unilateral party committing the same mistake of law then in that case it becomes valid and no defence granted.
DEFENCES IN LAW OF TORTS:
If an individual intentionally inflicts harm upon another or violates their rights, they cannot claim a defence even if they believed their actions were justified. However, if an individual acted under a mistaken belief, they may use the defence of mistake to avoid liability under tort law.
CONCLUSION
In a suit if any person committing Mistake of facts in good faith gets complete defence by both penal laws and civil laws
REFERENCES:
- K.D. Gaur, Textbook on the Indian Penal Code , 4th ed.Universal Publication.
- Professionals’s The Indian Penal Code,(45 of 1860) (I.P.C.) [Bare Act],(2023).
- Professionals’s The Indian Contract Act,(9 of 1872) [Bare Act],(2023).
- State of Maharashtra vs Mayer Hans George,AIR 1965 SC 722.
- R v. Tolson (1889).