A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise,…

Ignorantia Facti Excusat : It means ignorance of 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. For example, A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise, to the best of his judgment exerted in good faith, seizes Z, to bring Z before the proper authorities. It turned out that Z was acting in self-defence. A has committed no offence because he was acting in a mistake of fact. 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.