Furiosi nulla voluntas est – “a madman has no will" or "a person of unsound mind has no free will".
Meaning of the Maxim
Latin: Ignorantia facti excusat, ignoratia juris non-excusat
English: “Ignorance of fact is an excuse, but ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
This is a fundamental principle of law which differentiates mistake of fact from ignorance of law.
Key Idea:
If a person acts under a mistaken belief of fact, they may be excused from liability.
If a person claims they did not know the law, they cannot escape liability; everyone is presumed to know the law.
Explanation
1. Ignorance of Fact (Excusable)
Occurs when a person is unaware of some fact that is material to their action.
Law may excuse the act because the person did not intend wrongdoing.
Example:
A buys a stolen item without knowing it was stolen. They may have a defense under law of good faith.
2. Ignorance of Law (Not Excusable)
Occurs when a person claims they did not know an act was illegal.
Law presumes everyone knows the law, and ignorance does not excuse the wrongdoing.
Example:
A crosses a traffic signal claiming “I didn’t know it was illegal.” This is not a defense.
Legal Basis
Presumption of Law Knowledge:
Under common law and Indian law, every citizen is presumed to know the law.
Criminal Law:
Mens rea (guilty mind) is affected only by mistake of fact, not by ignorance of law.
Civil Law:
Same principle applies in contract, property, and tort law: mistakes of fact may excuse, mistakes of law usually do not.
Case Laws
Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) [US Supreme Court]
Facts: Defendant argued he did not know tax law.
Held: Ignorance of law is not a defense, but mistake about factual circumstances may be considered.
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, AIR 2006 SC 1446
Fact-based mistakes may mitigate liability, but ignorance of criminal law will not excuse.
R. v. Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154 [UK]
Defendant took a girl believing she was over 16.
Held: Mistake of fact (age) can be a defense; mistake of law cannot.
Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, AIR 1903 Cal 539 (India)
Example in civil contracts: if a minor signs a contract, they are excused for factual incapacity, but ignorance of contract law wouldn’t excuse adults from obligation.
Principle in Indian Law
Section 76 & 79, Indian Penal Code:
Acts done under mistake of fact are excusable.
Criminal and civil law consistently uphold:
Ignorance of law is no excuse, but mistake of fact may be a defense.
Summary Table
| Type of Ignorance | Excusable? | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Ignorance of Fact | Yes | Buying stolen goods unknowingly |
| Ignorance of Law | No | Not knowing theft is illegal |
Conclusion
This maxim reinforces the idea that law expects individuals to know legal obligations but recognizes that honest mistakes about facts can occur. It is a cornerstone in both criminal law and civil liability to distinguish intentional wrongdoing from innocent mistakes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments