Mistake of Fact Section 76 79 IPC and Section 14 17 BNS
Mistake of Fact in Criminal Law: IPC Sections 76/79 & BNS Sections 14/17
Law relating to mistake as an exception to criminal liability has been dealt with in Section 76 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 14 and 17 of the BNS).
Section 76 IPC/Section 14 BNS- Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, 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, bound by law to do it.
Section 79 IPC/Section 17 BNS - Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified, by law
Nothing is an offence 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.
Section 76 excuses a person from criminal liability who in good faith, owing to a mistake of fact, believes that he is bound by law to do something and does it. Whereas s 79 absolves a person, who believes, by reason of mistake of fact and not by reason of mistake of law, in good faith, that his act would be justified by law. Under section 76 there is legal compulsion and under section 79 there is legal justification. These sections, by implication, also distinguish between mistakes of fact and of law and hold that the former and not the latter exonerates a wrongdoer.
The purpose of these two sections is, thus, to provide protection from conviction to persons, who are bound by law or justified by law in doing a particular act, but due to a mistake of fact, in good faith, committed an offence. Mistake negates the existence of a particular intent (mens rea) of foresight, which penal law requires to make a person liable.
Nature of Mistake to be proved to avail this exception :
1. The state of things believed to exist would, if true, have justified the act done
The mistake must be of such a character, that had the supposed circumstances been real, they would have prevented liability from attaching to the person in doing what he did. Therefore, it is no defence to a burglar, who breaks into House no 5 to show that he mistook the house for House no. 6, for in these instances both the actus reus and mens rea would still have existed even in the circumstances supposed.
Similarly, on a charge for assaulting a constable in the discharge of his duty, the fact that the assailant did not know of his official character will not excuse him from criminal liability.
2. The mistake must be reasonable
Mistake of fact can act as a valid defence and exempt a person from criminal liability only if the mistake is both genuine and reasonable. The belief or misunderstanding must be such that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have likely made the same error. If the mistake arises from negligence or recklessness it will not be excused.
A mistake of fact cannot be successfully pleaded when responsible inquiry would have elicited the true facts.
For example, A person has sexual relations with a girl who claims to be 18, but she is only 15. He doesn't verify her age. Since A didn't verify or inquire, the mistake is not reasonable.
3. The mistake must relate to fact and not law
This is obviously based on the English Common Law maxim - ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat which means ignorance of fact excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse. The principle 'ignorance of law is no excuse', which implies that it is not open to a wrongdoer to plead ignorance of law as a shield to avoid criminal responsibility, is based on the ground that everybody is presumed, rather duty bound, to know the law.
It is merely a legal fiction, which has been created in public interest for the sake of convenience and out of necessity. If ignorance of law is admitted as an exonerating factor, it is argued, every accused will take the plea of mistake of law as a defence and it will be difficult for prosecution to refute it and to show affirmatively that the accused knew the law in question. It will also lead to endless complications making the administration of justice nearly impracticable and introducing an element of uncertainty in the administration of justice. Allowing mistakes of law will also lead to the encouragement of ignorance of the law.
In State of Maharashtra v MH George (1965), Court held that ignorantia juris non excusat admits of no exception, not even in case of a foreigner who, in the circumstances in which he was placed, cannot be reasonably supposed in fact to know the law of the land. However, the court held that it may operate as a mitigating factor.
Bound by Law
Under Section 76 IPC (now s 14 BNS), acts done by a person bound by law or by mistake of fact believes himself to be bound by law is protected from criminal liability. The illustrations to the section explain the meaning of the term 'bound by law'. The first illustration is of a soldier who fires on a mob by order of a superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. The action of the soldier is protected under this section. The second illustration is that of an officer of a court of justice who, being ordered by court to arrest Y, and after due enquiry, believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. The action of the officer is again protected under this section. In order to get benefit of this provision, thus, a person has to show the existence of facts which would justify his belief, in good faith, that he was bound by law to act.
Justified by Law
Section 79 IPC (now s 17 BNS) protects a person who does something that is either actually justified by law or is honestly believed, due to a mistake of fact, to be justified by law. If the person genuinely and in good faith thinks they are acting lawfully, they are not held criminally responsible even if they are later found to be mistaken. This protection applies only when the act is done with the intention of upholding the law, based on the person's honest and reasonable judgment.
In Dakhi Singh v State (1955), the accused arrested the deceased who was suspected of being a thief, and the deceased resisted the arrest. The accused used force which resulted in his death. Though s 46, CrPC, lays down that a police officer can use all means necessary to effect arrest, it also states that it does not give the right to cause death of a person who is not accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. So, it was held that since the deceased was only suspected of theft, s 79, IPC, did not justify shooting the person dead.
