Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the defense of mistake of fact. It states that "nothing is an offense 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 justified by law in doing it."
This means that if a person commits an act that would otherwise be considered an offense, but they have a genuine and reasonable belief that their actions were justified under the law, then they will not be held legally responsible for their actions.
For example, if a person is walking through a dark alley and comes across what they believe to be a dangerous animal, they may use force to defend themselves. If it later turns out that the "animal" was actually a toy or a harmless creature, the person will not be held legally responsible for using force, as they had a genuine belief that their actions were justified under the law of self-defense.
There are certain conditions that must be met in order for the defense of mistake of fact to apply. The mistake must be genuine, meaning that it was not made intentionally or recklessly. It must also be reasonable, meaning that it was a mistake that a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence could have made under the same circumstances.
The defense of mistake of fact can be used in a variety of situations, such as self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, and more. It is an important principle in criminal law that allows individuals to act in good faith to protect themselves and others without fear of legal repercussions, as long as they have a reasonable belief that their actions are justified under the law.
In summary, section 52 of the Indian Penal Code provides a defense for individuals who commit an act that would otherwise be considered an offense, but who have a genuine and reasonable belief that their actions were justified under the law. This principle helps to protect individuals who act in good faith to defend themselves and others, and allows for flexibility in the application of the law in certain circumstances.
Section 52 IPC
Illustration: A intentionally causes Z's death, partly by illegally omitting to give Z food, and partly by beating Z. A person is said to lose wrongfully when such person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when such person is wrongfully deprived of property. Illustration: A panchayat acting under Regulation VII, 1816, of the Madras Code, having power to try and determine suits, is a Court of Justice. Your access and use of this website is subject to its Terms of Use. A man or plan which is intended to be used or which may be used as evidence, is a document.
Here A and B intentionally co-operate in the commission of murder and as each of them does an act by which the death is caused, they are both guilty of the offence though their acts are separate. Illustration: A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. I was my college topper for five years. Thank you for your love and support. Here, a may not have intended to cause death and may even be sorry that death has been caused by his act; yet, if he knew that he was likely to cause death, he has caused death voluntarily. Z dies of hunger. Illustration: A writes his name on the back of a bill of exchange.
Having been trained and mentored by some of best lawyers, he brings a unique perspective and varied experience to his practice. Illustrations: a The sections, in this Code, which contain definitions of offences, do not express that a child under seven years of age cannot commit such offences; but the definitions are to be understood subject to the general exception which provides that nothing shall be an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Both A and B are guilty of the murder of Z. A and B administer the poison according to the agreement with intent to murder Z. As the effect of this endorsement is to transfer the right to the bill to any person who may become the lawful holder of it, the endorsement is a "valuable security". Opinions expressed in any article are those of the author himself only.
The endorsement is a document, and must be construed in the same manner as if the words "pay to the holder" or words to that effect had been written over the signature. Illustration: A sets fire, by night, to an inhabited house in a large town, for the purpose of facilitating a robbery and thus causes the death of a person. I am a law graduate. Please consult legal experts with full details of your case before relying upon the advice given. My name is Ankur. A is dismissed from his office, and B succeeds him.
Property in possession of wife, clerk or servantWhen property is in the possession of a person's wife, clerk or servant, on account of that person, it is in that person's possession within the meaning of this Code. The meaning of the endorsement, as explained by mercantile usage, is that the bill is to be paid to the holder. Any reference to any advocate on this website does not constitute a referral or endorsement, nor does it constitute an advertisement. We offer initial consultations over the telephone and in person at no cost. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z.
I hope you have a fruitful time here. A power-of-attorney is a document. B is guilty of murder, but, as A did not co-operate with B, A is guilty only of an attempt to commit murder. Illustrations: a A and B agree to murder Z by severally and at different times giving him small doses of poison. A and B, intending to cause Z's death, knowingly co-operate in causing that effect by illegally omitting, each during the time of his attendance, to furnish Z with food supplied to them for that purpose. During his career, he has been involved in some of the most complicated and high profile cases, and participated in several ground-breaking litigation cases.
Here A is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement; for he was bound by law to apprehend Z, and therefore the case falls within the general exception which provides that "nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it. Z dies from the effects of the several doses of poison so administered to him. The main motive was to make a modern law website that is clean, comfortable, and has few ads. Effect caused partly by act and partly by omissionWherever the causing of a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by an act or by an omission, is an offence, it is to be understood that the causing of that effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is the same offence. Ashok Dhamija, Advocate, Supreme Court, New Delhi. And in sections 141, 176, 177, 201, 202, 212, 216, and 441, the word "offence" has the same meaning when the thing punishable under the special or local law is punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term of six months or upwards, whether with or without fine.
. A has committed murder. B, without collusion or co-operation with A, illegally omits to supply Z with food, knowing that he is likely thereby to cause Z's death. Everything is going well. Here, though A and B are both engaged in causing Z's death, B is guilty of murder, and A is guilty only of culpable homicide. A, intending to cause Z's death, illegally omits to supply Z with food; in consequence of which Z is much reduced in strength, but the starvation is not sufficient to cause his death.
.jpg)