Roopa takes away a piece of jewellery from the showroom without purchasing it with the intention of showing it to her mother who was shopping in another part of the mall. She was accused of theft. She alleged that she was not aware of the fact that what she did was a crime punishable under IPC, 1860. The Court still held her guilty, because of the applicability of _____.

Ignorantia facti excusat Ignorantia Jures Non Excusat

The correct answer is Option (2) → Ignorantia facti excusat Ignorantia Jures Non Excusat

This legal principle means "ignorance of fact excuses, but ignorance of law does not excuse." In Roopa's case, the court held her guilty because not knowing that an action is a crime is not a valid defense under the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for committing a crime.