Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: (1952)53 CrLJ 1212 (M.P.)
Date of Judgement: 19 February, 1952
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Hemeon, Hon’ble Justice V.R. Sen
Statute referred: Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections: 79, 84, 302, 304A
Case Referred: Bonda Kui v. Emperor AIR 1943 Pat 64
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:
A mistake of fact arises when an individual does any act but misunderstood some incontrovertible fact that negates a component of the crime.
A mistake of fact as a defence applies to varied crimes. If the criminal defendant can prove that he does the act thinking it to be an error of fact or misunderstood some incontrovertible fact that negates a component of the crime.
Rationale:
The accused during a moment of delusion believed his only son to be a vicious animal, a tiger and subsequently assailed him with an axe. it had been held that he was justified as he mistook a person’s being to be a dangerous animal and wasn’t held responsible for his mistake.
Judgement:
The defence of mistake of fact was applied and therefore the accused Chirangi Lohar wasn’t held responsible for the offence of killing his own son as he was into a belief that there was a tiger that was approaching towards him.
Conclusion:
As observed during this case a father kills his own son believing, in straightness, him to be a tiger. It had been observed that a hunter mistakes a person for an animal and often fires a shot. Similarly, here, through an error a person meaning to do a lawful act has done that which is unlawful.
There has not been any conjunction between his act and his will, which is important to make a criminal act. If there was no malice aforethought, there was an error therefore it is going to be no crime.