CASE ANALYSIS

STATE OF ORISSA VS RAM BAHADUR THAPA

INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE : There is an abandoned airport in Rasgovindpur village that has
been accumulated in significant quantities. The aero scrap was held in control of two chaukidars by the
Garrison engineer of the defence department. Jagat Bandhu Chatterjee of the Chatterjee brothers arrived
to the area with the Nepali servant Ram Bahadur Thapa to purchase the aero scarp (respondent). The
Adivasis were afraid of spirits in the village, and they would not go out at night.

But because Jagat Bandhu Chatterjee and Ram Bahadur Thapa were eager to see the spirits, they
persuaded Krishna Chandra Patro and Chandra Majhi to accompany them. They were led to Chandra
Majhi's village by Chandra Majhi. As a result, they went to view the ghosts around midnight and then
began returning to the village through a footpath over the airbase.

They were returning when they observed a flickering light in the distance, as well as some apparitions
wandering around the flickering light. Ram Bahadur Thapa was the first to arrive at the location, and
without thinking for a second, he began attacking the ghosts indiscriminately with his khurki, and when
he hit Krishna Chandra Patro, he shouted that the respondent had attacked him, and the victims also raised
a cry of distress, so the respondent stopped attacking the people.

The respondents attacked and harmed some female majhis from the area who had come to harvest mohua
flowers under a mohua tree with a hurricane light at that hour of night. One girl, Gelhi Majhiani, was
killed and two other ladies were severely injured in the indiscriminate attack.

Ram Bahadur Thapa, the respondent, was charged with murder under section 302 of the IPC, as well as
hurt and grievous hurt under sections 324 and 326 of the IPC.

ARGUMENTS OF THE CASE :

Respondent: Respondent's counsel, Ram Bahadur Thapa, stated that the respondent had either the
essential criminal purpose or knowledge for his act, and that when he attacked the victims, he felt he was
attacking ghosts rather than humans. The benefit of section 79 of the IPC is offered to a person who, in
good faith and believing himself to be justified by law, commits an act. With the facts of this case, it is
evident that the respondent believes he is assaulting spirits, and thus he is entitled to protection under
Section 79 of the IPC.
Appellant: According to section 52 of the IPC, nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith if it is
done or believed without appropriate care and attention. Except for the facts and circumstances indicated
in this instance, the respondent can be legitimately regarded to have acted in bad faith. Section 52 of the
IPC requires that the act be done with due care and attention to demonstrate that it was done in good faith.
The Court's Decision: The Hon'ble High Court found that the respondent was protected under section 79
of the IPC since it could be reasonably inferred that the respondent thought himself and behaved in good
faith while attacking the females that he was attacking the ghosts. The court further ruled that the mere
fact that the occurrence could have been avoided if the respondent had acted with greater care and
attention is not a valid reason to deny him protection under Section 79 of the IPC. The high court upheld
the learned sessions judge's decision, and the ruling of acquittal was confirmed, and the appeal was
dismissed.

Observation: The defence of factual error utilised in the cases may differ to some extent depending on
the facts of that case. The role of the law is to ensure that the defence of factual errors is not abused and
that victims are not denied justice. This can be accomplished by establishing universal norms or
principles that apply to all circumstances.
The court is in a position where it must determine whether or not the accused acted in good faith, as
defined by section 52 of the IPC, and whether or not he had any malicious purpose when attacking the
victim. In addition, the accused must have acted with proper care and attention. Understanding the word
"good faith" is utilised to establish not just the accused's mental state, but also the reasonableness of the
offence, and it must be a relevant consideration in enabling the defence.
There are two main criteria that help distinguish between what was a true legal error and what was a
contrived or attempted misuse of the defence. The first is that the accused must be allowed to make a
mistake of fact only where it is a reasonable mistake, and an unreasonable mistake is a borderline on
negligence.
An objective theory of justification, on the other hand, is employed by a court of law to determine
whether the act performed by the accused was genuinely justified under the law in place. These principles
would also ensure that victims receive justice by punishing the guilty for acting in bad faith or where the
act was not warranted by the law.