CIA 1

PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

TITLE: State of Orissa V. Ram Bahadur Thapa

DATE: 1 March 2024

SUBMITTED TO: Ms. Shraddha Yadav

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S NO. CONTENT
1 INTRODUCTION
2 FACTS
3 ISSUES
4 ANALYSIS
5 CONCLUSION

2
 INTRODUCTION

Criminal jurisprudence treats mistake of fact in a peculiar manner as it can be a defense and
an accused can gain protection under section 79 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case
of State of Orissa vs. Ram Bahadur Thapa 1 is a landmark precedent on the mistake of fact as
it led to the accused being acquitted by the sessions court charged of section 302, section 324
and section 326 of IPC on ground of benefit of mistake of fact in good faith under section 79
which was further upheld the High Court of Orissa in the appeal despite causing death to an
individual.

FACTS

The case begins with the presence of an abandoned aerodrome in the village named
Rasgovindpur in the Balasore district of Orissa. The main engineer in charge decided to keep
two security personnel named Dibakar and Govind to guard the valuable aero scrap. This
aerodrome was haunted with ghost by the Adivasis consisting of Santals and Majhis who
resided in villages close to the aerodrome.

Now Jagat Bandhu Chatterji owned a firm called Chatterji Brothers in Calcutta and arrived in
Rasgovindpur along with a servant who was called Ram Bahadur Thapa to purchase the aero
scrap around April of 1958. Their brief place of stay was in the house of Krishna Chandra
Patro who had the profession of a tea seller in the same area. A point to note is that these men
believed in the supernatural thus were eager to see such paranormal activity and the
occurrence of such was said to be most active during Tuesdays and Saturdays in the
aerodrome.

On 20th May 1958 Chandra Majhi who lived in the same village decided to take shelter at
Krishna Chandra Patro’s tea stall around 9pm and wanted to stay there fearing the presence of
ghost. Jagat Chatterji and his servant, Ram Bahadur decided they wanted to witness the
presence of the rumored ghosts and further decided to bring Krishna Patro with them. The
three men then escorted Chandra Majhi to his place of stay called Telkundi and on their
return ventured through a footpath across the aerodrome to reach Rasgovindpur. They soon

1
State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa, 1959 SCC Online Ori 22

3
noticed the flicker of light at 400 cubits along the way coupled with the blowing of the wind
and the random movement of lights created to them a ‘will-o the wisp’ like shape and figure.

There were other ghost-like figures around the light, which made the party rush towards it.
The servant reached the spot first and started attacking the figures with a ‘khurki’ and did not
think twice of checking even though he had a torch. Krishna Patro reached the spot a little
later but was also mistakenly attacked by the servant receiving a huge blow with the khurki.
Patro and the other figures who were struck with the khurki cried out in pain and agony
which made the servant(respondent) stop. It was finally clear that the ghostly figures were
just local Majhi women who had gathered around a ‘Mohua tree’ around that hour to gather
‘Mohua’ flowers with the aid of a hurricane lantern.

The actions of the servant, Ram Bahadur Thapa resulted in the death of one lady named Gelhi
Majhiani, two women named Ganga Majhiani and Saunri Majhiani and finally Krishna Patro
who sustained grievous injury. Thus, the respondent was charged under Section 302 2 of the
Indian penal code (IPC) for the murder of Gelhi Majhiani and under section 326 of the Indian
Penal Code3 for injuring Ganga Majhiani and Saunri Majhiani and under Section 324 of
Indian Penal Code4 for causing hurt to Krishna Chandra Patro.

The Session court acquitted the accused servant on the reasoning that he was protected under
section 79 of Indian Penal Code5 based on the facts presented and was convinced it was a
mistake of fact, thinking he was genuinely attacking ghost and not human beings.

2
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 302, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860(India)
3
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 326, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860(India)
4
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 324, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860(India)
5
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 79, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860(India)

4
 ISSUES

Whether the acquittal of the respondent by the sessions court was a valid judgment?

Whether section 79 of the Indian Penal code protects the killing and injuring of people by the
respondent?

Whether the act could be considered in good faith as per section 52 of IPC?

Whether extra care would have averted the tragic incident from occurring?

5
 ANALYSIS

The court was convinced that the accused truly and ardently believed in the presence of ghost
and likewise believed that such reaction on his part was natural. The question of whether he
considered the presence of such figures to be something other than the ghost never crossed
his mind and such narrative was accepted by the court. To reach such a conclusion, the
reasons are detailed below.

The court tried to use the testimonies of two witnesses, Krishna Chandra Patro and Jagat
Bandhu Chatterji to analyze the facts and used the said testimonies in the interpretation of the
events that occurred. The court however found inconsistencies in the statements of Krishna
Patro since there was contradiction in his account of the events given under section 164 of the
Indian penal Code. In his previous accounting under 169 of IPC 6, the mention of Jagat
Chatterjee forceful nature of convincing to witness the ghost was not retold to the Sessions
Judge. He changed his narration of events by not admitting that he had gone with Jagat
Chatterjee in the midnight to see the ghost. The court had relied on the statement of Jagat
Chatterjee even though he was the master of the accused since they felt that there was no real
sympathy shown by him to the accused and had been consistent in his statements.

Because of Jagat Chatterjee’s statement that on the night of 20 th May 1958 when the witness
along with Krishna Patro and the accused escorted Chandra Majhi to his village and on their
way back witnessed such figures that they thought and believed were ghost in the aerodrome.
In fact, Patro shouted “here are the ghost” thereupon the servant who is the accused pursued
the figures in the shortest route and started striking them with a khurki which resulted in
death of one lady named Gelhi Majhiani, two women named Ganga Majhiani and Saunri
Majhiani and finally Krishna Patro who sustained grievous injury because he arrived later
and amidst the frenzy was a victim.

The court explained that section 79 of the Indian Penal Code protects a person who does an
act by mistake, but his intentions were in good faith. The good faith can be deduced by the

6
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 169, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860(India)

6
facts and circumstances and further propounded that section 52 7 of the Indian Penal Code
requires due care and attention for it to be considered as good faith. This is judged based on
the facts and circumstances and there can be no general standard applicable to all to see if
there was attention and care. The court cited Emperor v. Abdool Wadood Ahmed8, ILR 31
Bom 293: “The standard of care and caution must be judged according to the capacity and
intelligence of the person whose conduct is in question. It is only to be expected that the
honest conclusion of a calm and philosophical mind may differ very largely from the honest
conclusions of a person excited by sectarian zeal and untrained to the habits of reasoning.”
And in Bhawoo Jiwaji v. Mulji Dayal9 that “the law does not expect all persons to take due
care and attention regardless of the positions they hold. The question of good faith should be
considered according to the facts and circumstances of the case”.

The court concluded that the accused was in a foreign land with a firm belief in ghost and
heard of such ghostly presence in the aerodrome. Moreover, they went on a Tuesday night
which was purportedly said to be one of the most active days for the ghost and his master and
Patro made no attempts to dispel such beliefs of the accused, in fact on the account of Patro’s
cry of ghost on that night this would have strength his already firm and ardent belief in the
paranormal. All this was sufficient reason to understand for the acts of the accused. On the
appellants cry that a little care of using the torch to verify would have resulted in a different
outcome, the court cited the two leading decisions in Waryam Singh v. Emperor 10 and Bouda
Kui v. Emperor11. These two cases also involved the question that if the accused had taken a
little bit of extra attention and care, the incident could have been averted. Nevertheless, the
High Court ruled that the accused would be protected under Section 79 of Indian Penal Code
because the circumstances under which the apparition took place before him and his pre-
disposition, it would be reasonably believed that the accused believed in good faith that there
were ghost present before them.

Thus, the court held that the accused was protected under section 79 of the Indian Penal Code
and upheld the decision of the Sessions court which resulted in the dismissal of the appeal
and the acquittal of the accused.

7
Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 52, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860(India)
8
Emperor v. Abdool Wadood Ahmed, ILR 31 Bom 293
9
Bhawoo Jiwaji v. Mulji Dayal, (1888) ILR 12BOM377
10
Waryam Singh v. Emperor, AIR 926 Lah 554
11
Bouda Kui v. Emperor, AIR 1943 Pat 64

7
 CONCLUSION

This case enlightened the interpretation of section 79 of the IPC that an accused is protected
if the individual does the act in good faith and believes their act to be justified by law.
Moreover, section 52 of IPC requires good faith to be of due care and attention, but this also
is subject to the person’s mental state and the situation at hand. The contention of extra due
care cannot deny a person protection of section 79 of IPC.

The court’s decision is accurate about law, but the fact remains that a person’s life was lost
and no evidence of any sort of compensation was given or considered by the court. This
decision was of benefit to law but seemingly lacks when morals and equality is weighed on
its scales.