Chirangi v. State (1952)
Quick Summary
The Bombay High Court explained when Section 79 IPC protects an accused. If a person, due to a mistake of fact and not a mistake of law, believes in good faith that the law allows the act, the person is not guilty.
Here, the father killed his son because he honestly thought he was attacking a tiger. The Court accepted this bona fide belief, supported by medical evidence, and set aside the conviction.
Issues
- Does Section 79 IPC apply when an accused kills under a genuine mistake of fact?
- Can medical and surrounding evidence show that the belief was held in good faith?
Rules
Section 79, IPC
Acts done under a mistake of fact, by a person who believes in good faith that the law justifies the act, are not offences.
Good Faith Test
Belief must be honest and reasonable in the situation. Evidence like medical condition, conduct, and prompt statements matter.
Facts (Timeline)
- Family: Chirangi, a widower, lived with his daughter, only son Ghudasai, and nephew in Bastar. Relations were cordial.
- Day of incident: Father and son went to a hillock to collect leaves. By evening the son did not return.
- Statement: Chirangi said he became disturbed, thought a tiger attacked, and struck with an axe.
- Body found: Wounds on temple, neck, arm; skull fracture. Father had injuries from a fall.
- Medical angle: Evidence showed bilateral cataract; this could distort perception.
- Trial Court: Rejected mistake of fact; convicted under Section 302 IPC.
- Appeal: Case went to the Bombay High Court.
Arguments
Appellant
- Act was under a mistake of fact; believed target was a tiger.
- Good faith belief supported by eye condition and immediate statements.
- No mens rea to kill a human being.
Respondent
- Belief was not reasonable; Section 79 should not apply.
- Nature and number of blows point to guilt.
- Trial Court’s view should stand.
Judgment
The High Court set aside the Section 302 conviction. It held that the accused acted under a bona fide mistake of fact protected by Section 79 IPC.
The Court relied on medical testimony and earlier rulings, noting that the accused believed he was striking a dangerous animal, not a human.
Ratio
When an accused, due to a mistake of fact, honestly believes that the law permits the act, and this belief is reasonable in the situation, Section 79 IPC removes criminal liability. Absence of mens rea is central.
Why It Matters
- Clarifies the difference between mistake of fact (excusing) and mistake of law (not excusing).
- Shows how medical evidence can prove bona fide belief.
- Links mens rea with liability: no guilty mind, no offence under the provision.
Key Takeaways
Section 79 protects acts done under a reasonable, honest mistake of fact.
Evidence of perception issues (e.g., cataract) can support the defense.
Mens rea is key; if the target is believed non-human, homicide intent fails.
Consistent immediate statements aid credibility.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: TIGER = Thought non-human, Impaired vision, Good faith, Evidence supports, Removes liability (S.79).
- See: Accused sees a tiger (belief).
- Show: Medical + conduct show good faith.
- Shield: Section 79 shields from guilt.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Does Section 79 IPC excuse a killing done under a genuine mistake of fact?
Rule
Act is not an offence if done under a good-faith mistake of fact with belief of legal justification.
Application
Cataract and conduct made the belief plausible; immediate statements were consistent.
Conclusion
Section 79 applied; conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside.
Glossary
- Mistake of Fact
- Wrong understanding of a fact situation, honestly held.
- Good Faith
- Honest and reasonable belief in the circumstances.
- Mens Rea
- Guilty mind; intention or knowledge of wrongdoing.
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now