[preeti_deokar]

Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, provides a definition for the offence of “hurt.” This word refers to inflicting harm on a person in any way, including bodily discomfort, disease, or infirmity. The term “infirmity” refers to the inability of one or more organs to perform their usual functions. This ailment could be transient or long-term. An injury to a person’s body is commonly referred to as being hurt. The term “simple injury” refers to an injury that is caused by a simple hurt. The external component of the body is injured when a simple injury occurs. In such circumstances, the suffering is limited to physical rather than mental suffering. As a result, such harm is punished under Indian Penal Code section 323. A year in prison or a fine is the punishment.

While on the other hand, under section 320 of the Indian penal Code, the term “grievous hurt” is defined. Wherein the body’s outside or inner parts are gravely wounded, causing bodily anguish. Important body organs, such as the eye, ear, joints, and face displacement or fracture, may be injured. Grievous pain is a type of extreme pain. The penalty is a seven-year prison sentence and a fine. In the case of serious injury, the chance of death is substantially higher.
The following kinds of hurt only are designated as ‘grievous’: –
a. Emasculation;
b. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye;
c. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear;
d. Privation of any member or joint;
e. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint;
f. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face;
g. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth;
h. Any hurt which:
– Endangers life, or
– Which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or
– Unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

[preeti_deokar]

The principles of ‘ignorantia facti excusat, ignornantia legis neminem excusat’ or ‘ignorantia facit doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat’ are well-known maxims of criminal law, and they are incorporated into Sections 76 and 79 of the Code. It means that lack of facts is an excuse, but ignorance of the law is not. The idea of means rea is followed by this maxim. In layman’s terms, it indicates that an offence is pardoned owing to a factual error.

Mistake of Fact – Section 76:
The term “mistake of fact” refers to a misunderstanding about the existence of a fact. It is a factual error if the truth of the fact is not correctly known. When someone makes a factual error, they have knowledge of the information but come to the wrong conclusion about it. As a result, a mistake that can be used as an excuse must be a mistake involving a material fact, i.e. the fact must be important. The term “mistake” refers to more than just forgetfulness. It’s a blunder caused by misfortune.

Mistake of Fact by person justified by law – Section 79:
Nothing is a crime committed by someone who believes himself to be justified by law, or who believes himself to be justified by law because of an error of fact rather than a mistake of law committed in good faith.

Analysis
Section 79 is complementary to section 76. Section 79 exempts a person from criminal culpability if, due to a factual error, he believes himself to be justified by law to conduct such an act and does so in good faith, rather than due to a mistake of law.
So, a person is accountable for an offence if he had knowledge of the facts; nevertheless, a person who could not discriminate between right and wrong due to ignorance or a factual error could not be held liable. The notion that a man who is mistaken or ignorant about the existence of a fact cannot develop the essential intention to commit a crime and is thus not accountable in law for his conduct or action.

[Author]

Replies