A enters a direction on the wrong side. A policeman caught him. He pleaded factual error because he did not know it was a one-way street. Here, A does not get the defense, because he should show care and attention, because there was a sign on the street that a reasonable man can easily see. Ignorance of the facts is an excuse because it prevents the accused from establishing the mens rea required. This can be clearly understood from this example. Before going to the temple, he fired his gun and left it empty. But while she was away, someone else used her gun to shoot and held the loaded gun where A had left it. A came back from the temple and accidentally hit the trigger, forcing him to shoot and the bullet killed his wife, who was in the room.

In this case, A had reason to believe that the weapon was not loaded. He can therefore plead an error of fact in this case. The accused, a police officer, questioned a person who was moving early in the morning with three pieces of cloth under his arm, suspected of transporting stolen property. When he did not receive a satisfactory response from him and was refused inspection, he arrested him. However, the inspector released him. The High Court quashed the conviction on the ground that the defendant had acted in good faith and good faith under section 79 of the Code. His goodwill was demonstrated when he began questioning the person to find out the truth about the matter. Since it prevents the accused from producing the required mens rea, ignorance of the facts is an excuse. He refutes the concept of mens rea.

According to Section 76 of the Indian Penal Code, the maxim „ignorantia facti doth excusat ignorantia juris non-excusat” means that a person has committed an act that constitutes a criminal offence under the law, by virtue of a misinterpretation of the facts that leads him to believe in good faith that the law has ordered it. Here, a legal defense error could help Jack successfully contest the conspiracy charge. Jack honestly believed he had permission to sell marijuana according to the law. Therefore, he did not intend to violate a drug law and did not have the mindset to „conspire „. He simply made a mistake in good faith in interpreting a state law. „Ignorantia Juris neminemexcusat”, which means that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The legal concept of error of law refers to one or more errors made by a person in interpreting the application of the law to his or her previous conduct, which is reviewed by the court. An error of fact may be used as a defence to avoid liability by not invoking any Mensrea; However, it must be true, reasonable and authentic. On the other hand, an error of law is usually not an excuse. With the exception of children, madmen and lunatics, it is assumed that everyone knows and understands the law of the nation. There are other unusual exceptions to this rule.

On the other hand, if a person commits an act that they honestly believe to be lawful, a factual error can be used as a defense. In tort, there are two categories of errors that a normal person can make: The word good faith in the case of an error of fact means an act done with care and attention. One cannot defend oneself in good faith by entering a one-way street on the opposite side, because a reasonable man can easily see the existing sign. However, if a person accidentally committed an illegal act in good faith and honestly believed that they were compelled to do so, they may be excused. The Honourable High Court held that the respondent was protected under section 79 of the Criminal Code because it could reasonably be assumed that the defendant believed that he was doing ghosts and that he was behaving in good faith in attacking the ladies. The court also concluded that the mere fact that the event could have been avoided if the defendant had acted with more care and attention is not an acceptable reason for denying him protection under section 79 of the Criminal Code. The court upheld the decision of the judge of the scholarly sessions, confirmed the acquittal and dismissed the appeal. An error of fact as a defence applies to various crimes. If the accused can prove that he committed the act on the basis of an error of fact or that he misunderstood a fact that denies an element of the crime.

In most States, it is necessary to be able to justify the use of one of the above sources to defend against an error of law.