State of Orissa Vs Ram Bahadur Thapa AIR 1960, Ori 161, 1960 Cri LJ  1349

Section 79 if IPC 1860 is a provision which states that if an act is done under mistake of fact then no punishment will be given. It will be considered under good faith.

          Case Analysis: State of Orissa Vs Ram Bahadur Thapa AIR 1960, Ori 161, 1960 Cri LJ 1349

          Name : Aayushi Khaneja

          Designation: First year law student at IMIRC College of Law, CCS University, Meerut

          Introduction:

            State of Orissa vs. Ram Bahadur Thapa AIR 1960 Ori 161, 1960 Cri LJ 1349 is a case which can be said as a historic landmark case. In this case, it was discussed about where people used to believe in the existence of supernatural powers. In this case the incident happened like that, when accused  took the defense on the basis of existence of supernatural things like ghosts. The bench of supreme court tried whether the defense as valid or invalid.

            Table of Contents

• Facts of the Case
• Issue
• Judgment of the Court
• Analysis
• Conclusion

Facts of the Case: The case went on going around the incident where the respondent was accused of the murder of one woman and grievous hurt to other woman. The actor from the movie Chatterjee brothers, Calcutta i.e. Jagat Bandhu Chatterjee visited Rasgovindpur and on this business trip, Ram Bahadur Thapa, his nepali servant accompanied him. They both visited in 1958 in the month of April for purchasing aerospace.

They stayed near some village area where Adivasi lived. Long ago, those people believed in ghost and supernatural powers. There were some rumors that there was a place where ghosts lived. They were told that Tuesdays and Saturdays were the most horrific days of the week.

After they heard this, Jagat Bandhu and his servant got excited to hear all this as this was very different and new to hear that and they wanted to see a ghost. To see a ghost they went out on 20^th may 1958, Tuesday with their land lord Krishna Chandra Patro, who belonged to Rasgovindpur. He also accompanied both of them to find a ghost at midnight.

As, they were moving, everyone saw some lights in the dark. They thought that there was some ghost as wind was blowing very fast. The whole situation made them believe that there was a ghost around them.

Ram Bahadur who is a respondent in this case attacked a woman in hustle believing her as a ghost. He carried a weapon with him with which he attacked her which resulted in the death of the woman.

During this whole incident, he attacked other women too who were with the dead woman, including the landlord. But, he noticed afterwards that they were female majhis who were collecting mahua flowers. Due to this incident, respondent i.e. Ram Bahadur as punished under section 302, 324, 36 of Indian Penal Code for murder and grievous hurt.

When the case went into sessions court, judge ordered acquittal of the respondent. Later appeal was filed by the victims but high court thought sessions court as correct and it upheld the order of acquittal.

Issue: In State of Orissa vs. Ram Bahadur Thapa, Sessions court acquitted the accused who was charged under section 302, 324, 326 of Indian Penal code 1860. The issue which was raised in the appeal was that whether the decision of subordinate court was valid when the defense of supernatural powers was accepted which on the other hand meant that defense of offence under section 79 of IPC 1860.

So, the decision of acquittal given by the subordinate court was valid or not?

Judgement of the Court: The court founded that the act was covered under the general exceptions mentioned under Chapter IV of Indian Penal Code 1860. Session court  judge believed that the situation and circumstances of the event was completely under the shield of mistake of fact.

Section 79 if IPC 1860 is a provision which states that if an act is done under mistake of fact then no punishment will be given. It will be considered under good faith.

The advantage of section 79 of IPC is given to the person who acts in the mistake of fact in good faith. The court was satisfied regarding the situation under which Ram Bahadur acted and it can’t be termed as carelessness but according to the evidence, it was clear that the act was done under good faith.

Analysis: Section 79 of IPC stated about the mistake of fact as a general exception where crime is committed. It says that when a person believed anything which is a mistake of fact and by that fact he actually believed his act to be valid under law such as self defense then that act will be considered under good faith. No other mistakes but only mistaken part on the facts of the situation will be considered under section 79 of IPC.

Under this case, nepali servant believed on the existence of ghosts as it was old period and this concept was accepted by people, so jury also as normal citizens accepted his concept. Respondent was clear about ghosts and that’s why he mistakenly harmed people thinking them as ghosts.

This was complete consequence of the indiscriminate attack where the defense argued that his client actually believed in the existence of ghosts and that’s why he attacked.

This statement was accepted as this case is of the period of late 1950s.

The opposite party raised question about duty and care and attention. This argument was rebutted by justice R Narasimham itself in the appellate court where he contented on section 52 of IPC which talks about good faith. Further, the duty of care and definition of good faith differ from case to case. There is no particular way to define good faith.

In the emperor case, the court answered the debatable issue by saying that the accurate  test for ‘due care’ would be to check for the capacity and intelligence of the accused. So, if any case arose then the intelligence of the accused will be checked before granting them the benefit of section 79 of IPC. Under this case, respondent acted without applying any mind which meant that attack was the instant reaction without any other thought. The people around him shouted that there is a ghost which provoked him and he attacked out of self defense. The individual was untrained person with inexperienced mind.

There were some factors which supported his mental condition. One of them can be that the respondent was very new to the place and was completely unaware about the custom and the custom and the living style of that area which made him to believe and cat according to  the direction of localite people. Those people filled their mind with ghost thoughts which filled them up with emotions of fear. They also believed in supernatural powers and as a result, they also told that Saturday and Tuesday are the most horrific day of the week and even most of the incidents happened on that day. The respondent was sure about the presence of ghosts due to customary mark of the village.

Secondly, there were also some incidents which showed the presence of some supernatural powers like wind blowing fast, woman plucking flowers at night etc.

No action was recorded on part of Mr. Chatterjee for stopping him while he was attacking on self defense. There was no effort on the part of other two people who accompanied the respondent by which it was assumed that those people were also terrified by that situation.

The point of checking on the person who cried out of the pain is illogical as no human being went to verify whether the stories about supernatural powers are true or not.

Law cannot ask anyone to act in a particular way when it comes to fear and a person is filled with emotions.

By these factors and observations, it was believed that the judgment given by sessions court is correct. But it will not be considered true in today’s time because it is much different from period of 1959.

Today, there will be hardly any defense on the ground of supernatural powers as jury does not believe on such activity.

Conclusion: There were many legislations and provisions which were relied by this judgment. Section 52 and 79 of IPC were referred while judging the case. Apart from that, various cases like Emperor vs. Abdul Ahmed, Waryam Singh vs. Emperor etc. were taken into consideration while talking about general exception of IPC.

written by-Aayushi Khaneja, IMIRC College of Law, University, Meerut intern under legal vidhiya