IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA

Govt. Appeal No. 7 of 1959

Decided On: 09.11.1959

Appellants: State of Orissa

Vs.

Respondent: Ram Bahadur Thapa

FACTS:

There was an abandoned aerodrome where aero scrap is collected in the village,
Rasgovindpur. In this village people had strong belief in ghosts. One fine day Jagat Bandhu
Chatterjee along with his Nepali servant, Ram Bahadur Thapa paid a visit to Rasgovindpur
for purchasing aero scrap. They stayed with a local a tea stall owner namely Krishna Chandra
Patro. Due to the fear, people used to avoid the paths crossing the aerodrome. One night
Chandra Majhi from a nearby village came to the tea stall for taking shelter as he was afraid
of going alone to his village because of ghosts. Jagat Bandhu Chatterjee and his servant were
curious to have an encounter with the ghost. Therefore they persuaded Krishna Chandra to
accompany them. They all woke up in midnight and escorted Chandra Majhi to his village.
While they were returning to Rasgovindpur they saw a flickering light at a distance through a
path across the aerodrome. There was strong wind and movement of light which created an
impression that it was the ghost not ordinary light. They also found some apparitions moving
around the flickering light. They all ran towards the place thinking some ghosts were dancing
around the light. Ram Bahadur Thapa reached first there and began to attack ghosts
indiscriminately with his khurki. Krishna Chandra Patro arrived there but Thapa did not
notice him and injured him also with his khurki. Krishna Chandra Patro screamed in pain that
Thapa had injured him. Meanwhile all the other injured persons also screamed and after this
Thapa stopped attacking people. It was discovered afterwards that the persons he injured
were not ghosts but were female Majhi who were collecting Mohua flowers. The servant with
his khurki killed one Gelhi Majhiani and two other females were grievously injured.

Ram Bahadur Thapa was charged under section 302 of I.P.C for the murder of Gelhi
Majhiani, under section 326 of I.P.C for causing grievous hurt to two other females and under
section 324 of I.P.C for causing hurt to Krishna Chandra Patro.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Ram Bahadur Thapa was under a mistake of fact?

2. Whether Ram Bahadur Thapa was guilty of murder?

ARGUMENTS:

Appellant:

1. According to the prosecution, the respondent did not behave with due care and should
therefore be held guilty. But the respondent acted in good faith, believing he was
attacking the ghosts, not people. Good faith needs due care and attention, but overall
norms of care and attention are not in place. The standard of care and attention
depends on the ability and intelligence of the individual whose behaviour is at issue.
Ram Bahadur Thapa was a strong believer in ghosts according to the facts and
conditions. And on Tuesday and Saturdays the aerodrome was thought to be haunted
by ghosts, and this generated in him almost a certainty that there would be ghosts at
about midnight on that date. And not even his master and Krishna Chandra Patro
made any efforts to remove his impression from his mind. Therefore he acted by
reason of mistake of fact in good faith.
2. The prosecution also urged that the respondent was having a flash light and if he had
used that at the moving figures he would had noticed that they were human beings
and not ghosts.

Respondents:
The respondent argued that there had been no doubts in his mind therefore there was no
reason that he would confirm that there were ghosts or not. Therefore the respondent should
get the benefit of section 79 of I.P.C.

RATIO

The person who by reason of mistake of fact in good faith believes himself to be justified by
law in doing an act gets the benefit of section 79 of I.P.C. Good faith do require care and
attention but there is no general standard for care and attention. It depends on the capacity
and intelligence of the person whose conduct is in question.

LEARNING OUTCOME:

It could be taught from the facts and circumstances of the above-mentioned situation that the
failure of an individual to commit a bona fide error of reality and to commit an act under that
error is not guilty. There is no need for due care and attention as there is no general standard
for care and attention. It relies on the person's ability and intelligence. Referring to the
accused's situation and the conditions under which he operates, the issue of good faith must
be regarded.