Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)
Introduction
In criminal jurisprudence, the intention of the accused plays an important role in determining liability. Among the general defences available to an accused, the defence of "Mistake" occupies a significant place. A "mistake" can be of two types — Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law. While one may exonerate the accused under certain conditions, the other is generally not recognized as a valid defence. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) has retained this essential distinction in its provisions, particularly under Section 17.
1. Mistake of Fact
Statutory Provision: Section 17, BNS
Section 17 of the BNS corresponds to Sections 76 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
17(1): "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."
17(2): "Nothing is an offence which is done by a 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."
Explanation:
A Mistake of Fact arises when a person misunderstands a fact relevant to the act they are doing. If this mistake is genuine, committed in good faith, and the person believes they are either bound by law or justified by law in doing the act, they are protected from criminal liability.
Essential Conditions:
Mistake relates to a fact, not to the law.
The belief must be held in good faith.
The act done under such a mistake should otherwise attract criminal liability but for the mistake.
Illustrations:
Bound by law (Section 17(1)):
A police officer arrests a person believing that a valid warrant has been issued by the court. In fact, no such warrant exists. The officer is protected by this provision since he made a mistake of fact.
Justified by law (Section 17(2)):
A person sees someone breaking into a house at night and strikes him thinking he is a thief. The intruder was actually the lawful owner. This is a mistake of fact done in good faith.
Important Case Laws:
1. State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik (1987) 2 SCC 498
Facts: The accused killed a person believing him to be a ghost. He genuinely thought that a ghost was harming the villagers.
Held: The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, accepting the plea of mistake of fact under Section 79 IPC (now Section 17(2) BNS).
Principle: If the mistake is of fact and committed in good faith, the accused gets protection.
2. Chirangi v. State (1952) Cri LJ 1212 (Nagpur HC)
Facts: The accused killed his son under the belief that he was a tiger attacking him in the dark.
Held: The court accepted the defence of mistake of fact and acquitted the accused.
3. R v. Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168 (UK Case)
Facts: A woman remarried believing her husband was dead (after five years of no contact).
Held: She was acquitted as she acted under a mistake of fact.
Relevance in India: This principle influenced Indian law to recognize genuine mistake of fact as a valid defence.
2. Mistake of Law under BNS, 2023
Maxim: Ignorantia juris non excusat — Ignorance of law is no excuse.
This means that no person can plead ignorance of the law as a defence for committing a crime. It is presumed that every person knows the law of the land.
Explanation:
A Mistake of Law arises when a person is unaware of the existence or scope of a law and acts in contravention of it, believing such conduct is lawful.
Example:
A man brings banned animal products into India and claims he did not know such import was illegal. His lack of knowledge about the ban does not excuse the offence.
Important Case Laws:
1. State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (1965) AIR 722 (SC)
Facts: The respondent carried foreign currency without declaring it at the airport as required by law. He pleaded ignorance of this customs regulation.
Held: The Supreme Court held that ignorance of the law is no excuse. He was liable for the offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
Principle: Mistake of law is not a valid defence.
2. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P. (1979) 2 SCC 409
Facts: The petitioner claimed they were unaware of the requirement of tax payment.
Held: The court rejected this plea, holding that ignorance of tax law could not be pleaded as a defence.
3. Keighley, Maxsted & Co v. Durant (1901) AC 240 (UK Case)
Held: Mistake of law does not render a contract void; ignorance or misunderstanding of law is not sufficient to invalidate legal obligations.
Difference between Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law:
Conclusion
The distinction between Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is essential in determining criminal liability. The legislature, by incorporating Section 17, continues to uphold the defence of mistake of fact, ensuring that individuals are not punished for acts they genuinely believed were lawful due to factual misunderstanding. However, the doctrine that ignorance of law is no excuse remains firmly embedded in Indian criminal jurisprudence, ensuring that people cannot escape legal obligations by claiming unfamiliarity with the law.
The jurisprudence reflected in landmark judgments like State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik and State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George further clarifies the application of these principles, guiding both courts and legal practitioners. Thus, while the defence of mistake of fact can save an innocent accused, the defence of mistake of law cannot be used to evade responsibility under the BNS, 2023.
Closing Credits
Author - Isha Tiwari
"The views expressed are personal. This article is intended for educational purposes and public discourse. Feedback and constructive criticism are welcome!"
Mistake relates to a fact, not to the law.
The belief must be held in good faith.
The act done under such a mistake should otherwise attract criminal liability but for the mistake.
Bound by law (Section 17(1)):
A police officer arrests a person believing that a valid warrant has been issued by the court. In fact, no such warrant exists. The officer is protected by this provision since he made a mistake of fact.
Justified by law (Section 17(2)):
A person sees someone breaking into a house at night and strikes him thinking he is a thief. The intruder was actually the lawful owner. This is a mistake of fact done in good faith.
Facts: The accused killed a person believing him to be a ghost. He genuinely thought that a ghost was harming the villagers.
Held: The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, accepting the plea of mistake of fact under Section 79 IPC (now Section 17(2) BNS).
Principle: If the mistake is of fact and committed in good faith, the accused gets protection.
Facts: The accused killed his son under the belief that he was a tiger attacking him in the dark.
Held: The court accepted the defence of mistake of fact and acquitted the accused.
Facts: A woman remarried believing her husband was dead (after five years of no contact).
Held: She was acquitted as she acted under a mistake of fact.
Relevance in India: This principle influenced Indian law to recognize genuine mistake of fact as a valid defence.
A man brings banned animal products into India and claims he did not know such import was illegal. His lack of knowledge about the ban does not excuse the offence.
Facts: The respondent carried foreign currency without declaring it at the airport as required by law. He pleaded ignorance of this customs regulation.
Held: The Supreme Court held that ignorance of the law is no excuse. He was liable for the offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
Principle: Mistake of law is not a valid defence.
Facts: The petitioner claimed they were unaware of the requirement of tax payment.
Held: The court rejected this plea, holding that ignorance of tax law could not be pleaded as a defence.
Held: Mistake of law does not render a contract void; ignorance or misunderstanding of law is not sufficient to invalidate legal obligations.
Comments
Post a Comment