CASE BRIEF: STATE OF ORISSA v. RAM BAHADUR THAPA, AIR 1960 ORISSA 161

CASE NAME	State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa
CITATION	AIR 1960 ORI 161, 1960 CRILJ 1349, 26 CUT L T 238 ILR (1960) CUT 22, ILR (1960) CUT 22
COURT	Orissa High Court
BENCH	Hon’ble Chief Justice Naramsimham
PETITIONER	State of Orissa
RESPONDENTS	Ram Bahadur Thapa
DECIDED ON	Decided on 9th November, 1959

INTRODUCTION

In an action initiated against the respondent, Rum Bahadur Thapa, under sections 302, 324, and 326 I.P.C., the State of Orissa has filed an appeal against the Sessions Judge of Mayurbhanj’s ruling of acquittal. The defendant was accused under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Gelhi Majhiani, Section 326 IPC for causing P.W.s. 27 and 28 great pain, and Section 324 IPC for causing P.W. 26 pain. Because the learned Sessions Judge thought the respondent committed the accused crimes while acting under the false impression that he was targeting ghosts rather than people, he decided to acquit the defendant based on Section 79 of the I.P.C.

The defense of ignorance of fact (Ignorantia facti doth excuse) is acceptable but not of ignorance of the law. Errors are also excused by ignorance of the facts. The Indian Penal Code’s General Exception chapter has statutory provisions regarding the “defense of mistake of fact,” specifically sections 76 and 79. Regarding the excusing of factual ignorance, one of the seminal precedent cases is the State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa. The case concerns the accused’s murder of women in an attempt to apprehend a ghost. In this instance, the legal definitions of “good faith” and “due care and attention” have been highlighted. There is no set criterion for defining mistake of fact, which includes good faith. It varies from person to person, depending on the individual’s intelligence. This case sets a crucial precedent for determining whether a general defense of a mistake of fact plea is genuine or not.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case concerns Mr. Ram Bahadur Thapa, the respondent, who killed a woman named Gelhi Majhiani and seriously injured Ganga and Saunri Majhiani after mistaking them for ghosts. The tragedy happened in the Balasore district village of Rasgovindpur on May 20, 1958. There is an abandoned airport in the region. The Adivasi settlements that encircled this aerodrome were primarily home to Majhis and Santhals. These people have a strong belief in spirits, and the abandoned airport became well-known for having ghost infestations in the surrounding area. As a result, the peasants would rarely go out by themselves at night.

A resident of the village Telkundi named Chandra Majhi, along with their landowner Krishna Chandra Patro and a Nepali servant named Ram Bahadur Thapa (Respondent), were excited to see spirits in the vicinity of the abandoned airport. When the four people mentioned above arrived at the scene, they saw a flickering light that, because of the strong breeze, began to move. This caused them to become afraid that apparitions were moving around the flickering light. The respondent, Ram Bahadur Thapa, used his “Khurki” to attack the spirits without distinction since he thought they were ghosts dancing around the light. Later on, it was found that the people he had attacked were a few female Majhis from the area who had been gathering “Mohua” flowers under the tree at that hour of the night while using a hurricane light.

One female, Gelhi Majhani, was killed as a result of the respondent’s indiscriminate attack, and two other females, Ganga Majhiani and Saunri Majhiani, suffered severe injuries. Furthermore, Krishna Chandra Patro sustained injuries as well. On the basis of these facts, Mr. Ram Bahadur Thapa was charged with murder under section 302 of the IPC, serious harm to Ganga and Saunri Majhiani under section 326 of the IPC, and harm to Krishna Chandra Patro under section 324 of the IPC.

ISSUES RAISED

Whether the respondent behaves carelessly or not?
Does the respondent have protection under I.P.C. Sec. 79?
Should the accused’s position and the circumstances surrounding his actions be taken into account when evaluating the question of good faith?

ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH SIDES

Argument on behalf of the petitioner

Despite the absence of intention, the accused did not behave with “due care and attention,” therefore it is not possible to assume that they operated in good faith. The respondent must, therefore, be held accountable for it.
The High Court of Appeals largely concurred. Acknowledging that while the idea of a duty of care, or due care or attention, is covered by the Good Faith provision of section 52 of the Indian Penal Code, the precise definition of this duty varies depending on the facts of each case, the parties involved, and the location, time, and circumstances of the incident.

Argument on behalf of the respondent

The respondent argued that he had just attacked the ghosts and had no malicious intent, believing that he was acting in accordance with apparitions. Their defense was that the respondent believed he was attacking ghosts rather than people when he attacked the victim and had no criminal intent or knowledge.
Additionally, the respondent said that he was a visitor and not a local. He firmly believed in ghosts and the rumor that ghosts haunted Rasgovindpur, particularly in the vicinity of the airport. This led to the respondent being fixated on the idea that spirits were present.
He so felt extremely ecstatic upon witnessing the moving light and attacked the beings without even a little pause, mistaking them for ghosts. The testimony of the witnesses suggested that the respondent was holding a torch but that he did not flash it because he was so terrified and excited. Instead, he attacked abruptly. This supports his noble intentions as well.

JUDGMENT

Because it was reasonable to assume from the way the apparition appeared before him and his inclination that he believed he was fighting a ghost rather than a person, the High Court decided that Section 79 I.P.C. protected the defendant. Based on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is evident that Section 79 I.P.C protects the respondent. The incident might have been prevented if he had taken additional care, but it does not exclude him from the protection that the provision offers. Consequently, the verdict of acquittal is maintained, and the appeal is rejected.

“The standard of care and caution must be judged according to the capacity and intelligence of the person whose conduct is in question,” the court cited to the Emperor v. Abdeol Wadood Ahmed. It is assumed that someone with a calm, philosophical mind would not think the same as someone who is zealous and has not developed thinking skills. The accused’s position and the circumstances surrounding his actions must be taken into account while evaluating the question of good faith. The law does not hold everyone to the same level of consideration and care.

CONCLUSION

Because the concept of ghosts existed in the past and was widely acknowledged, the jury, in this instance, accepted the belief held by the Nepali servant as well as that of the general public. The respondent misled people into believing that they were ghosts since he was aware of ghosts.
This was a direct result of the indiscriminate attack, for which the defense contended that his client attacked because he genuinely thought ghosts existed. Given that the case pertains to the late 1950s, this assertion was approved. The opposing side questioned responsibility, consideration, and care. Justice R. Narasimham refuted this reasoning in the appellate court, focusing on section 52 of the IPC, which discusses good faith.

The fundamental tenet of criminal law is that an innocent person cannot commit a crime. In order to prove an offense, the mental component, or mens rea, is a must. On the other hand, the accused may raise the defense of “Mistake of fact” in accordance with sections 76 and 79 of the IPC’s General Exception chapter. Section 76 offers a defense for individuals who, in good faith, believed they were required by law to carry out the in-issue act due to a factual error; section 79 offers the same protection in the event that the individual feels that they are legally justified. According to the theory, ignorance of fact is excused and includes error. This is known as ignorantia facti doth excuse.

Based on the aforementioned example, it can be inferred that Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code helps the accused if they believe their actions were justified by the law and committed the crime in good faith. According to Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code, good faith necessitates using caution and to be given by an individual’s attention. The individual’s mentality and level of care and attention determine the conditions around the act’s occurrence. The simple reality that the defendant may have been Section 79 of the IPC cannot be utilized to deny the accused benefits despite extreme caution and diligence. But there’s a pressing need to educate individuals about preconceptions and their incorrect outcomes since these preconceptions present circumstances in which, even though the law is applied, some innocents lose their lives.