The concept of mistake of fact and mistake of law is a fundamental aspect of criminal jurisprudence that plays a pivotal role in determining the culpability of an individual under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This project explores the multifaceted dimensions of these two distinct but interrelated legal defenses within the Indian legal framework.

Mistake of fact, as enshrined in Section 76 of the IPC, provides an exemption from criminal liability when an individual commits an act under a genuine and reasonable belief that the facts justifying their actions exist. Analyzing this defense, the project delves into the nuances of 'reasonable belief,' highlighting the challenges in determining what constitutes a 'reasonable' mistake.

In contrast, mistake of law is generally not considered a valid defense in criminal cases. However, the Indian legal system does recognize certain exceptions where an individual may be excused due to an honest and bona fide belief in the legality of their actions. The project investigates the scope and limitations of this exception, shedding light on cases where mistake of law can be invoked successfully.

By considering various perspectives, this project aims to contribute to the broader discourse on the principles of justice and fairness within the criminal justice system. It underscores the importance of striking a balance between protecting individual rights and maintaining the integrity of the legal framework. In doing so, it seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding mistake of fact and mistake of law under the IPC, offering valuable insights for legal practitioners, scholars, and policymakers.

Introduction
A straightforward interpretation of sections 76 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 reveals that the protection provided by these sections only applies to mistakes of fact, not mistakes of law. Particular attention should be paid to the phrase "who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes" that appears in these sections. For instance, suppose a ticket conductor discovers that a man is riding a train without a ticket. He will be penalised under Section 138 of The Indian Railways Act, 1989, and cannot argue that he was unaware that a ticket is necessary to board the train.

There are two types of defenses based on mistake:

1. Mistake of law and
2. Mistake of fact.

Sections 76 to 106 of Chapter IV of the IPC, titled "General Exceptions," exclude particular people from prosecution. Even if an accused person's actions or inactions appear to meet the criteria of a section that defines an offence or specifies its punishment, they are not considered offences if they fall under any of the chapter IV exceptions. These clauses can serve as all- purpose defences. General defences are justifications that allow someone to avoid responsibility if their actions fall under one of the specified categories. The defendant cannot avoid responsibility if he is unable to provide evidence for his necessity to commit such act.

A person is only eligible to use the defence if they act with good intentions, in good faith, and in accordance with the law. According to Black's law dictionary, the word "justified" means "the act done on adequate reason sufficiently supported by credible evidence, when weighed by the unprejudiced mind, guided by common sense and by correct rule of law".

An offender's behaviour must be undertaken in "good faith" in order for him to qualify for the Sections 76 and 79 defence. The term 'good faith' has been defined in section 52 IPC as "Nothing is said to be done or believed without due care and attention."

Mistake Of Fact
A mistake of fact is a type of legal criminal defense that can sometimes demonstrate that the defendant lacked a certain mindset required to be part of the crime. This implies that an individual did not plan to conduct theft if they unintentionally commit a crime, such as stealing someone else's purse because it looks like their own.

Section 76: "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."1
Mistake of fact is different from mistake of law, which refers to a person committing a crime without understanding that they were in violation of the law. Everyone is expected to know the laws in their community, and ignorance of the law is rarely a strong defence in court.

Mistake of law only applies if the law being broken was not published at the time the crime was committed, if the defendant was relying on a previous law or statute that had been recently overturned or changed, or if the defendant was relying on another official interpretation of the law. In most other circumstances, people are expected to be aware of the laws in their country or state.

Mistakes of fact must, in general, be reasonable mistakes. They can absolve someone of responsibility in some situations, but they must always be demonstrated to be inadvertent. Even so, a factual error is rarely sufficient justification for a criminal prosecution. Because a mistake of fact is a material error concerning the circumstances around a crime and not errors about the legality of an action, an important distinction must be made.

What would otherwise be a criminal is frequently excused by ignorance or factual errors. When one or both sides misinterpret one another and find themselves at a crossroads, this is known as a mistake of fact. It occurs when an accused person misinterprets an information that disproves a component of the crime. Such an inaccuracy may result from misinterpretation, ignorance, omission, etc.

However, an error is never deliberate; rather, it is the result of carelessness. A factual error can only serve as a defence in situations when it disproves a crucial component of the offence and the offence is framed in such a way that proof of intention or foresight is not required.

Essentials of a Mistake of Fact:

• It has to be justifiable;
• It must be honest and done out of good intent;
• It goes beyond simple forgetfulness;
• It is the result of accident rather than design; and
• The error in law cannot be the cause.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but ignorance of the facts is, according to the maxims "Ignorantia facti doth excusat" and "Ignorantia juris non excusat." Consequently, throughout the trial, the error of fact may be pleaded as a defence. A criminal defendant may frequently want to contend that the unlawful act was the product of an error in facts about the circumstances of the crime or a misinterpretation of the law in effect at the time, and that he or she never intended to do a crime. While errors of law are rarely permitted as complete defences against criminal activity, errors of fact can be used to a wide range of criminal behaviours.

Illustration 1: Jacklyn went to a restaurant with her companion for dinner. She had a great day having dinner and having fun with her pals. She quickly picked a Samsung mobile from the table and fled the location because she had to go early. She grabbed someone else's phone, mistaking it for her own, and only realised when she got home that her personal Samsung phone was in her bag. She made a mistake because the two phones had the same colour, brand, and model. She wasn't going to take the phone. In this case, Jacklyn committed a legitimate factual error. Therefore, Jacklyn is not accused of stealing.

Illustration 2: Jacklyn went to a restaurant with her companion for dinner. She had a great day having dinner and having fun with her pals. She quickly picked up the Samsung phone off the table and exited the event because she had to go early. Upon arriving home, she discovered that her bag contained her own Motorola smartphone. She had mistakenly lifted someone else's Samsung phone, mistaking it for her own. In actuality, there was a complete difference between the two models.

She wasn't going to take the phone. In this case, Jacklyn committed a legitimate factual error. Therefore, Jacklyn is not accused of stealing. She can argue, on her own behalf, that the primary component of theft was not her desire to permanently remove the legitimate owner of the goods.

Illustration 3: Section 9 of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 prohibits killing wild buffalo in India. A person is considered to be acting both ignorantly of the law and of a fact if they shoot a wild buffalo believing it to be a domestic buffalo because they are unaware of section 9 of the Wildlife Protection Act.

Case Analysis: State Of Orissa Vs. Ram Bahadur Thapa2
Facts:

• The state of Orissa filed a lawsuit against the Mayurbhanj sessions judge's decision to acquit the respondent in a murder case brought under sections 302, 324, and 326 of the Indian Penal Code.
• There is an abandoned airport near Rasgovindpur village that was heavily mined. Two chaukidars were in charge of the aircraft junk, according to the Garrison Engineer of the Defence Department. Along with the Nepali worker Ram Bahadur Thapa (respondent), Jagat Bandhu Chatterjee from the Chatterjee brothers' company visited the area to buy the aero scarp. The Adivasis would not typically go outside at night due to their dread of spirits in the community.
• However, Jagat Bandhu Chatterjee and Ram Bahadur Thapa persuaded Krishna Chandra Patro and Chandra Majhi to go with them to view the ghosts because they were eager to meet the ghosts. They were led to Chandra Majhi's village by him. They visited the ghosts at around midnight and then started walking over the airport to go back to the village.
• As they were making their way back, they observed a flickering light in the distance and discovered some apparitions circling it. After arriving at the scene first, Ram Bahadur Thapa attacked the ghosts indiscriminately with his khurki. When he struck Krishna Chandra Patro, he yelled that the respondent had assaulted him. Meanwhile, the victims also let out a cry of distress, which caused the respondent to stop attacking the people.
• Some female majhis from the neighbourhood who had come to gather mohua flowers under a mohua tree at that hour of the night with a hurricane light were the people the respondent attacked and hurt. One girl, Gelhi Majhiani, was killed in the indiscriminate attack, while two other girls suffered severe injuries. Ram Bahadur Thapa, the respondent, was charged with murder under section 302 of the IPC and with harm and serious hurt under sections 324 and 326 of the IPC for this indiscriminate conduct of attacking the victims.

Issues:

• Whether the order issued by the court of session correct?
• Whether the respondent eligible for protection under IPC section 79?

Contentions Of Parties: Appellant:

• The appellant's attorney contended that section 52 of the IPC states:
  • Nothing that is done or believed without exercising appropriate caution and attention is considered to be done or believed in good faith. It can be reasonably concluded that the respondent did not act in good faith absent the conditions and circumstances indicated in this case. A thorough and careful execution of the act is necessary to demonstrate that it was carried out in good faith, as per section 52 of the IPC.
     
  • A woman's life could have been saved and she would still be alive today if the respondent had behaved with the appropriate caution and attention. However, because the respondent failed to behave with the appropriate caution and attention, he or she may be found guilty under section 304A of the IPC of killing Gelhi Majhiani and section 336 of the IPC of injuring other people.

Respondent:
Ram Bahadur Thapa, the respondent's attorney, was satisfied that the client had the knowledge or the required criminal purpose for his actions and that, at the time of the attacks, he thought he was harming spirits rather than live people. A person who, due to factual error, acts in good faith and believes that their actions are authorised by the law is entitled to the protection of section 79 of the Indian Penal Code. Given the circumstances in this instance, it is evident that the respondent honestly believes he was attacking ghosts, and as such, he is qualified for section 79 of the IPC's protection.

Ratio Decidendi:
In determining what constitutes "good faith" and appropriate care and attention, the court held that the individual's intellectual level was a determining factor. There isn't a universally applicable acceptable level of attention and care for every individual and situation.

The court cited the ruling in the case of Emperor v. Abdel Wadood Ahmed, which stated that the standard of care and caution should be determined by a person's capacity and intelligence. It is believed that a person with a calm, philosophical mind would differ from someone who is zealous and lacks reasoning habits. The accused's position and the circumstances surrounding his actions must be taken into account while evaluating the question of good faith. The law does not subject everyone to the same level of consideration and care.

Judgement:
The Honourable High Court ruled that the respondent was entitled to protection under section 79 of the Indian Penal Code since it might be reasonably assumed that he believed himself and acted honestly when hitting the women, believing that he was attacking the spirits. The court further decided that the respondent's potential ability to prevent the incident by acting with greater care and attention is not a good enough reason to deny him section 79 of the IPC protection. The order of acquittal was upheld by the honourable high court, which also dismissed the appeal, finding that the learned sessions judge's decision was correct.

Conclusion:
Depending on the specific facts of each case, the defence of factual errors may differ somewhat. The law's responsibility is to prevent abuse of the defence of factual error or denial of victims' justice. This might be achieved by guaranteeing a set of norms or guidelines that are generally applicable to all situations.

As required by section 52 of the IPC, the court must determine whether the accused acted in good faith and whether he had any malicious intent when attacking the victim. The accused must also have acted with appropriate care and attention. Comprehending the meaning of "good faith" is crucial since it influences not only the accused's mental state but also the reasonableness of the offence and must be taken into account when granting the defence.Relevant Cases:

1. Chirangi V. State Of M.P.
   • Facts:
     • Chirangi Lohar visited a hillock together with his son. When he returned home and slept, his nephew found that the son is not with him and he features an axe which was stained with blood.
     • On being enquired he said that he became insane and that he killed his son on the fallacy that a tiger was approaching him.
     • His statement of being insane was proved by his psychiatrist.
     • Moreover, both father and son had a really good relationship between them which further proves that Chirangi had no reason to kill his own son.
   • Issue: Whether Chirangi Lohar will get defence of mistake of fact?
   • Obiter dicta:
     • When someone commits an act but misunderstands an unquestionable fact that disproves a part of the crime, that is an error of fact. A mistake of fact can be used as a defence for a variety of offences. If the criminal defendant can demonstrate that he committed the act believing it to be a factual error or misinterpreted an unquestionable fact, then it proves a part of the crime was not committed.
   • Judgement: Because the accused Chirangi Lohar mistakenly believed that a tiger was approaching him, the defence of error of fact was employed, and he was spared prosecution for the murder of his own kid.
      
2. Dakhi Singh V. The State
   • Facts of the Case:
     • The case involves an appeal by Dukhi Singh, who was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to death by the Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge of Allahabad.
     • The incident occurred on the night of July 28th and 29th, 1953, when a mixed train stopped at Handia Khas railway station.
     • Dukhi Singh, along with other Railway Protection Police personnel, arrested a person suspected of theft near a goods wagon.
     • The arrested person managed to escape from the moving train, leading to a pursuit by Dukhi Singh.
     • During the pursuit, Dukhi Singh fired his rifle, hitting a fireman named Ram Manohar, who later died from his injuries.
   • Issue of the Case: Whether appellant gets the defence of mistake of fact?
   • Judgment:
     • The court found Dukhi Singh guilty of the offense under Section 302, I.P.C. (murder) for shooting and killing the fireman.
     • The court rejected the argument that Dukhi Singh's actions were justified, as the person he was pursuing was suspected of theft but not accused of a capital offense.
     • Dukhi Singh's claim that he had been given orders to shoot by a superior officer was also not accepted as a valid defense.
     • The court concluded that Dukhi Singh had unlawfully caused the death of the fireman during the pursuit of the escaped person and upheld his conviction and death sentence.
        
3. R v. PRINCE
   • Facts:
     • Defendant Henry Prince was found guilty of removing Annie Phillips, a 14-year-old single female, from her parents' custody without their consent.
     • The jury found throughout the trial that even though the girl was just 14 at the time, she had told the defendant, and he had a reasonable belief that she was 18.
     • Additionally, the legislation under which he was found guilty said nothing about the mental state necessary for the act to be considered criminal. Accused makes an appeal. A case of kidnapping was brought against the defendant.
   • Issues: Whether a statute that is silent on the mental state necessary to qualify an act as a criminal compel the court to insert a mens rea requirement?
   • Judgement:
     • The Court held that "Mistake of fact does not stand as a defense to a crime where the statute making the act a crime contains no requirement of knowledge of that fact to begin with. In this case the forbidden act is wrong in itself and the legislature has enacted that if anyone does this act, he does so at his own risk. The dissent believes that there can be no conviction of a crime without a finding of criminal intent (mens rea). A reasonable mistake of fact, where the mistaken belief, if true, would not have resulted in the defendant committing a criminal act, should be an excuse that is implied in all criminal charges."

• Mistake of Law:
  • When someone commits a tort and claims ignorance of the law as a defence, that is taken into consideration. The court believes that everyone is aware of the nation's laws, which is why a legal error is not regarded as a defence in either the IPC or tort law. Legal error is not regarded as a defence.
     
• Illustration: As A killed B, he is not eligible to use the defence of mistake of law, which states that he was ignorant of the crime or relevant legal framework.
• Section 79: "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."

Illustration: When A witnesses Z, she believes she is seeing a murder. In order to bring Z before the appropriate authorities, A seizes Z while using the best judgement he can muster in good faith to execute the legal right of apprehending murderers in the act. Even though it's possible that Z was acting in self-defense, A hasn't done anything wrong. Legal error is not regarded as a defence. The defence that one is ignorant of the law is not taken into consideration by the court when someone commits a tort and makes such request.

When Can a Mistake of Law Be a Defence?

A mistake of law may, in a very few circumstances, be used as a defence against criminal prosecution. Among the situations when a legal error can be used as a defence are:

• When a statute was subsequently overturned or declared unconstitutional;
• When the law is not published;
• When the defendant relied on a judicial ruling;
• When the defendant relied on an interpretation by a relevant official;
   

Case Analysis: State Of Maharashtra Vs. Mayer Hans George 7

Facts:

On November 27, 1962, the respondent, a German merchant, boarded a plane from Zurich with 34 kilogrammes of gold-covered cargo that was to be delivered to Manila. The respondent remained inside the aircraft even after it arrived in Bombay on the 28th. After reviewing the aircraft manifest to determine whether any gold had been sent by passengers, the Customs Authorities searched the respondent, recovered the gold, and charged him with violating sections 8(1) and 23(1-A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (7 of 1947) in conjunction with a Reserve Bank of India notification dated November 8, 1962, which was published in the Indian Gazette on November 24. The High Court cleared the respondent notwithstanding the Magistrate having condemned them. The state filed a second appeal with the Supreme Court.

Issues:

• In light of sections 8(1) and 23(1-A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (7 of 1947), which were released in the Indian Gazette on November 24, 1962, is the respondent responsible for importing gold into India?
• Whether the respondent can take the defence of mistake of law under section 79 of IPC?

Arguments:

Petitioner's:

• The State of Maharashtra contended that mens rea, or criminal intent, was not a necessary component of the offence since the Act was passed to stop the smuggling of gold for the sake of the country's economic stability.
• They contended that the Act's objectives and mandatory provisions excluded the need for mens rea.
• According to a 1962 notification, there were some conditions attached to the general permit for bringing gold into India.
• The respondent breached the terms and was accountable under the Foreign Exchange Act since the gold was not declared in the manifest.

Respondent's:

• Mens rea was a necessary component of the offence accused, and as the respondent's lack of awareness of the Reserve Bank's notification was not called into question at the arraignment, he could not be held accountable.
• The warning's second requirement, which called for exposure in the show, did not apply to gold carried on a traveler's person. Instead, it was only considered to be in effect when it came to the attention of those who were affected by it.

Ratio Decidendi:

• Based on the wording of Section 24(1) and 8(1) of the Act, which places the burden of proof on the accused to demonstrate that he had the required authorization to bring gold into India, there was no room to invoke the rule that states that, in addition to the act of voluntarily bringing gold into India, any additional mens rea or menta condition has been proposed in order to establish an offence referred to in Section 23(1A).
• In addition, if a clause were added to the sections of the enactment specifying that the accused must demonstrate that he was aware that the law was being broken before he can be found in violation of it, the entire point and objective of the Act as well as its efficacy as a tool to stop smuggling would be completely undermined.

Judgement:

• The issue revolved around the application of certain stipulations to gold or gold articles carried by individuals, such as tie-pins or fountain pens with gold nibs, especially in the context of through travelers. These stipulations were associated with section 8(1) and an exception by the Reserve Bank.
• The concern raised was that applying these stipulations as they stood could lead to unnecessary harshness and irrationality in Indian law.
• The court emphasized a clear distinction between personal items and non-personal items, the latter being considered as "cargo" and requiring entry in the manifest.
• If an individual chose to carry items that were not considered personal effects but should rightfully be declared and entered in the airplane's manifest, there could be no objection to the perceived irrationality in Indian law.
• The respondent's conviction was upheld when the court determined that the respondent was not properly cleared by the High Court judges. As a result, the appeal was granted.
• In essence, the court fixed a technical error in the sentence imposed by the Presidency Magistrate by ordering that, even if the appeal was granted, the remaining time would be served.

Conclusion:
According to the ruling in M.H. George's Case - Phraseology of the statutory arrangement making an offence of strict liability, a few considerations seem to be important in determining whether or not a statutory arrangement makes an offence of severe obligation. These considerations include articulations that demonstrate or bar the necessary mental element or component. The type of mischief that the regulation or arrangement is intended to prevent, as well as whether strict liability will generally prevent the mischief-even though strict liability shouldn't be inferred primarily because the offence is portrayed as a serious societal evil- should be considered.

Consequently, the courts will continue to develop new principles to make the same decisions, disregarding the established guidelines regarding the application of the assumption. Ultimately, the application of the statutory assumption depends on the specific facts of each case and the type of statutory offence.

Relevant Case Laws:Grant V. Borg 8:

• Facts:
  • The defendant was found guilty of extending the period of time allowed by his entry permit into the United Kingdom. He had applied for several extensions of leave, but they had all been denied. The Divisional Court reversed his conviction and sent the case back to the magistrates to investigate whether he knew of his leave's expiration date prior to the alleged offences.
• Issues:
  • Whether the defendant take the defence of mistake of law?
• Judgement:
  • The defendant's appeal was successful because ignorance of the law was not a defence, but ignorance of a fact that was required for a conviction may be.
  • A defendant is deemed to know the law if it is readily available to them.
  • Since the offence was only committed after the leave had ended, the defendant's subsequent discovery of a necessary fact cannot be used to convict them earlier if they were unaware of it at the time of the offence.
  • Based on this scenario, the prosecution's computation was out of time as per section 28(1).
  • Lord Bridge emphasized the fundamental principle that ignorance of the law is not a defense in criminal cases. Requiring knowledge not only of the material facts but also of the relevant law would be revolutionary and unacceptable.
     

Mohammad Ali V. Sri Ram Swarup And Ors. 9:

• Facts of the Case:
  • This case involves an appeal by the complainant against the acquittal of four respondents under Section 342/109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
  • The four respondents include Ram Swarup (Head Constable) and three constables who were posted at the Kairana Police Station in Muzaffarnagar district.
  • The complainant is a practicing Homoeopath in Kairana. He alleged that on October 15, 1961, around 1 P.M., the respondents unlawfully arrested him and took him to the police station, where he was detained until 7 A.M. the following day. He was then sent to the District Jail, Muzaffarnagar, and released on bail on the evening of October 16, 1961.
  • Proceedings under Section 107/117 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C.) were initiated against him, but they were dropped on December 8, 1961, due to lack of evidence.
  • The complainant lodged a complaint on January 1, 1962, alleging that he had been arrested and detained unlawfully without any apparent reason.
     
• Issues:
  • Whether the respondents were justified in arresting and detaining the complainant under Section 342/109 IPC.
  • Whether the respondents get the protection under section 79 of IPC?
     
• Judgement:
  • Four accused individuals admitted to arresting the complainant on October 15, 1961, but disputed the location of the arrest, claiming it occurred in the market where the complainant was inciting communal feelings.
  • The defense argued that the complainant's actions in the market could lead to a breach of peace, justifying his arrest under Section 151 of the Cr.P.C, as there were no other means to prevent a potential offense.
  • The complainant and his witnesses testified that he was arrested from his dispensary (Matab) but did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the complaint.
  • The court confirmed the arrest on October 15, 1961, but found no evidence of the complainant's intent to commit a cognizable offense. The arrest under Section 107/117 Cr. P. C. indicated suspicion of attempting to breach the peace, which is not a cognizable offense.
  • The court deemed the arrest and detention of the complainant unlawful and unjustified. It violated his liberty, and the delay in filing the complaint did not change this conclusion.
  • The respondents' argument that they were protected by Section 79 of the IPC (justification by law or good faith belief) was rejected due to the lack of legal justification for the arrest.
  • The court allowed the complainant's appeal, overturned the respondents' acquittal, and convicted them under Section 342/109 IPC.
  • Ram Swarup, the Head Constable, was fined Rs. 100, with one month of simple imprisonment in default, while the other three constables were each fined Rs. 50, with fifteen days of simple imprisonment in default.

Conclusion:
"Mistake of Facts and Mistake of Law in IPC" has shed light on the critical distinctions between these two types of mistakes in the context of the Indian Penal Code. Mistake of facts, as we have seen, can be a valid defense in certain criminal cases, provided it negates the existence of a guilty mind or mens rea. On the other hand, a mistake of law generally does not excuse criminal liability, as ignorance of the law is not considered a valid defense.

However, there are exceptions and nuances that warrant careful consideration, such as cases of official interpretation, reliance on legal advice, and the principle of mistake of law with a fact. Understanding these distinctions and exceptions is crucial for a fair and just legal system. Additionally, this project has highlighted the importance of a well-defined and accessible legal framework that ensures individuals are aware of their rights and obligations under the law. In a world of increasing legal complexity, clarity in the law and legal education becomes paramount to prevent inadvertent violations of the law and to protect individuals from unjust prosecution.

Bibliography:

1. The Indian Penal Code, 1862.
2. K D Gaur, Indian Penal Code, Lexis Nexis (7th ed., 2020).

Cases:

1. State Of Orissa Vs. Ram Bahadur Thapa, 1960 CRILJ 1349.
2. Emperor vs Abdeol Wadood Ahmed, ILR 31 BOM 293.
3. Chirangi v. State of MP, (1952)53 CrLJ 1212.
4. Dakhi Singh v. State, AIR 1955 All 379.
5. R. v. Prince, LR 2 CCR 154.
6. M. H. George v. State of Maharashtra, 1965 SCR (1) 123.
7. Grant v. Borg, 1982 (1) W.L.R 638.
8. Mohammad Ali V. Sri Ram Swarup and Ors., AIR 1965 All 161.

Also Read:

• Understanding Mistake of Fact vs. Mistake of Law: A Deep Dive into Sections 76 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code