Ignorantia Facti Excusat, Ignorantia Juris Non-

Excusat

“ The ignorance of the law excuses no man; not that all men know the law, but because it is an excuse
every man will plead, and no man can tell how to refute him.”- John Seldon

Where the knowledge exists the ignorance will also exist there. Ignorantia facti excusat is a Latin maxim
means ignorance of a fact or mistake of a fact is an excuse. It is applicable to civil as well as criminal
jurisprudence. It says that ignorance will be considered as an excuse if a person charged with an offence
can claim that he/she is unaware of the fact. Ignorantia has been translated both as ignorance and
mistake, these terms are used interchangeably. According to this maxim, a person will exclude from a
criminal and a civil liability when they are ignorant of the existence of the relevant fact or commit a
wrongful act which he neither could foresee nor intended the unlawful consequences. One who
commits any wrong under a mistake of fact has a defence because he has insufficient data for reasoning.
There is no difference between ignorance of fact and mistake of fact. If the defendant is unaware of the
existence of a fact, then his\her liability will either not arise or will be reduced.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 describes this as Nothing is an offense 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.

This can be understood better with the help of this case, in State of Orrisa v. Khora
Ghasi, The accused while guarding his field shot an arrow on the moving object in a
good faith that it was a bear, but the shot results in the death of a person. But the court
made him free from any liability and he got the immunity under the mistake of fact. In
The Indian Contract Act, 1872, a contract is said to be void when both the parties to
the agreement are under a mistake as to a matter of fact.

We have various types of law like family, civil, criminal, contract and so on. It is well known that if anyone
ignores any of these laws he/she shall be held liable. This concept is explained by the maxim ignorantia
juris non excusat. It is a Latin maxim meaning ignorance of law or lack of knowledge or mistake of law
about legal requirement is not an excuse and hence liability arises in such cases. Ignorance of law means
lack of knowledge of those laws which a person has to know irrespective of whether he knows the whole
fact or not. These mistakes are of two types, the mistake can be either the mistake of Indian laws or
foreign laws. If the mistake is of Indian laws, then the ignorance of the law is not an excuse. This means
the party cannot claim that they were unaware of the law. However, ignorance of foreign law is not given
a similar treatment. The purpose of this maxim is that if a person charged with any civil or criminal
offence, she/he cannot claim that she/he is unaware of the law and avoid the liability. If the maxim is
relaxed, then every accused may take the plea that there was no knowledge of the law on his/her
part.hence it will become almost impossible for the prosecution to prove them wrong. In an illustration,
A, a foreigner, kills an elephant in India. He believes that killing an elephant to be lawful in India. ‘A’ is
guilty of killing an elephant. He can’t take the defence that he was unaware of the law.

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OF MAXIM:-

As we know that India was a country that was under British rule for almost 200 years
and has adopted the British laws that suit the Indian conditions and culture. during the
British rule, Indian courts were applying the English common law to settle disputes
and thus so far as the maxim is concerned to apply the same.
The maxim was considered by the Court in the case of Mohammad Ali v. Sri Ram
Swarup, it was held that mistake or ignorance of law, even in good faith, is not a
defence. It, nevertheless, may operate as a mitigating factor. And the arrest of a person
without a warrant not justified.

EXCEPTIONS OF THE MAXIM:-

exceptions are:
1. Unpublished law.
2. When the statute is overturned or held unconstitutional after the commission of the Act.
3. One’s actions have relied upon judicial decisions.
4. Relied upon an explanation by an appropriate official
Practical use of maxim:-

Sec 76 and Sec 79 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC), 1860, deals with the provisions of mistake of
fact and mistake of law precisely. It is rooted in the principle of Ignorantia Facti Excusat,
Ignorantia Juris Non- Excusat, which infers that ignorance of fact is an excuse, but ignorance of
the law is no excuse.
Section 76 of IPC, 1860 explains acts ‘bound by the law’ or in good faith or is in apprehension to
be bound by law, owing to a mistake of fact.
Section 79 of the IPC, 1860 explains the exempts of a person who believes that mistake was not
by law in good faith and would be justified by law. The sections are distinguished by the ‘bound
by law’ and ‘justified by law.’ but are substantially agreed based on a mistake of fact and good
faith. In section 76, an individual is under the impression that his actions are bound by law, and
in Section 79, a person believes the law justifies his actions.
The sections intend to shield an individual from conviction whose actions are bound or justified
by the law but, due to mistake of fact and in good faith, committed an offense.

Landmark judgments on this maxim:-

Chirangi v State held that an act done in good faith, believing to be justified by law, was a
defense.

In R vs. Bailey, the accused was away from the African coast when an act was passed, when the
British Parliament passed a statute; thus, he could not have been held guilty of the passing of the
law under which he is charged.

State of West Bengal v Shew Mangal Singh a deceased and her brother was shot to death by
police and was brutally murdered. The High Court and Supreme Court held that carrying out
superiors’ orders in good faith in an impression bound by the law is a defense enshrined
in Section 76 of IPC, 1860.

R v Tolson
The appellant was married on Sept 1880, and her husband went on missing. She was told he was
on a ship and was lost. After seven years, believing her husband is dead, she married again, but
her husband showed up and accused her of bigamy. It was pronounced that she was not guilty,
and it was the mistake of fact as it is fair to believe that her husband is deceased

State of Maharashtra v Mayer Hans George held that a mistake of law is no crime.

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION
It can be concluded from the above discussion that, the first part of the maxim
“Ignorantia facti excusat’’ talks that the people will not be considerd to be a
wrongdoer if he/she did any wrong by mistake of fact but the second part “ignorantia
juris non excusat” warns the people who break the law will be punished whether they
were aware of this law or not. it is for the larger public good, which allows the
effective administration of justice. So, the literal meaning of this- If the heir is
ignorant of the death of his ancestor, he is ignorant of a fact, but if being aware of the
death and his relationship, he is ignorant that certain rights have thereby become
vested in himself, it is ignorant of the law.
The farmers of the Act knew that there might be cases and instances where the accused cannot be
charged. Ignorance of the law will only lead to more rampant ignorance of the law, but the law also gives
scope to the acts bound by the law or is justified by law or any act done in good faith.