The ICFAI University, Dehradun: Summer Internship Program 2020

The ICFAI University , Dehradun
Summer Internship Program 2020
Student’s Name: Pulkit Awasthi

Enrolment No: 19FLICDDN01095
Batch Name & Year: BBA.LLB (2019-2024)
Project Title: CASE STUDY – STATE OF ORISSA V. RAM
BAHADUR THAPA (1959)
Submitted By: Pulkit Awasthi
Submitted To: Akhilesh Dureja

CITATION: State of Orissa v. Ram bahadur thapa
AIR 1960 Ori 161, 1960 CriLJ 1349
Petitioner: state of Orissa
Respondent: Ram bahadur thapa
Bench: R Narasimham, S Barman
FACTS: According to the case, in village Rasgovindpur, an abandoned aerodrome where

large quantity of valuable aeroscrap is collected and is surrounded by Adivasi villages,
inhabited mostly by Santals and Majhis communities having strong belief in ghosts as this
area is called to be haunted with such notoriety and infested with ghosts. Defence Department
kept it in charge of two choukidars as Dibakar and Govind to prevent pilferage by
unauthorised persons. One day Jagat Bandhu Chatterjee came there with Nepali servant,
Ram Bahadur Thapa for purchasing aero scrap. They stayed in the house of Krishna Chandra
Patro. Due to this fear, in spite of several footpaths, leading from one village to another from
aerodrome, Adivasis would not ordinarily venture out at night alone, along those paths. When
Jagat Bandhu with Ram Bahadur were there, Chandra Majhi from village Telkundi, close by
went to tea-stall of Krishna Chandra in Rasgovindpur at night and took shelter there for night
as was afraid of proceeding alone to his village (Telkundi) for fear of ghosts. But Jagat
Bandhu Chatterji and his Nepali servant were anxious to see ghosts. Hence at about midnight,
they persuaded Krishna Chandra to accompany them to see ghosts and they all woke up
Chandra Majhi, escorted him to his village Telkundi, and began returning to Rasgovindpur
through a foot-path across aerodrome. While passing through camp they noticed a flickering
light at distance from path-way. There was a strong wind blowing and the movement of the
light in that breeze created in them an impression that it was not ordinary light but 'will-o' die
wisp.' They also found some apparitions moving around the flickering light. They thought
that some ghosts were dancing round light and they all ran towards that place.
Ram Bahadur reached first with his 'khurki' and began to attack ghosts indiscriminately.
Krishna Chandra Patro arrived there sometime later, but Ram Bahadur did not notice him and
one of his Kurki blows caused severe injury to Krishna Chandra who screamed aloud saying
that the Nepali had injured him. Meantime other injured persons also raised cry of distress
and then he stopped attacking people. It was subsequently discovered that persons whom he
attacked and injured were some female Majhis of locality who had collected under a 'Mohua'
tree with hurricane lantern for gathering 'Mohua' flowers at night. In consequence of
indiscriminate attack with his 'Kurki' one Gelhi Majhiani was killed, and two other females
namely Ganga Majhiani and Saunri Majhiani were grievously injured. Krishna Chandra Patro
was also injured.
Ram Bahadur was charged under Sec. 302 I. P. C. for murder of Gelhi Majhiani, under Sec.
326 I. P. C. for having caused grievous hurt to persons injured and under Sec. 324 I. P. C.
for having caused hurt to Krishna Chandra. The Sessions Judge held that he committed said
acts, under bona fide mistake of fact, thinking that he was attacking ghosts and not human
beings and hence he acquitted him relying on Sec. 79 I. P. C. It is not the prosecution case
that Ram Bahadur had either the necessary criminal intention or knowledge and it was fairly
conceded that when he attacked his victims he thought he was attacking ghosts and not
human beings. But it was urged that he did not act with 'due care and attention" and that
consequently he should have been held guilty under S. 304A, I.P.C. for having caused the
death of Gelhi Majhiani and under Sec. 336 I. P. C. for having caused hurt to the other
persons.
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. 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. 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.
ISSUES:
1. Whether Ram Bahadur Thapa was guilty of murder?
2. Whether the session’s court rightfully acquitted the respondent on the grounds that a
mistake of fact took place in good faith? And therefore was the standard of care met?
DECISION:
Justice R Narasimham, in the appellant Court, agreed only partially. While he agreed that the
concept of duty of care falls within the ambit of good faith, as seen in Section 52 of IPC, he
also specified that the standard of care differs from case to case. As decided in Emperor v.
Abdeol Wadood Ahmed (ILR 31 Bom 293), when ascertaining the standard of care the
“capacity and intelligence” of the accused must also be considered. This is because what a
calm, experienced mind may conclude from a situation of excitement will be different from
that of an untrained, inexperienced mind. And the court must account for this inexperience on
an individual basis. It was known that the respondent had a firm belief in ghosts, and this
was seen when he attacks the figures without a second thought. It must also be noted that
there were multiple factors that might have convinced him of his sightings of the ghost like -
being new to the place, the incident taking place on a night known for supernatural activity,
and going out with the aim to view ghosts etc. What was also observed was how convincing
the situation was. This was confirmed by the action or inaction of Mr. Chatterjee and Mr.
Majhi (people of higher attainment), as they made no attempt to dissuade the respondent.
According to the Judge, it would not be logical to expect the respondent to check whether the
figures were ghosts after crying out and pointing out that they were ghosts.
The learned Sessions Judge was therefore right in acquitting the appellant. The order
of acquittal is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed.
REASON:
Ram bahadur thapa was not guilty of murder because as it was cleared by the facts that ram
bahadur has firm belief in the ghosts and multiple factors would have convinced of his
sightings of the ghost like - being new to the place, the incident taking place on a night
known for supernatural activity, and going out with the aim to view ghosts etc. As the
respondent also stated that there had been no doubts in his mind therefore there was no reason
that he would confirm that there were ghosts or not. Session’s court rightfully acquitted the
respondent on the grounds that a mistake of fact took place in good faith because it was
cleared by the facts that ram bahadur thapa was a strong believer in ghosts according to the
facts and conditions. He was not convinced by his masters or anyone to do so. It is also
observed that the situation was very convincing; anyone in place of respondent would have
done it to save himself. When we talk about meeting the standard of care, it was cleared by
Justice R Narasimham that when ascertaining the standard of care the “capacity and
intelligence” of the accused must also be considered. This is because what a calm,
experienced mind may conclude from a situation of excitement will be different from that of
an untrained, inexperienced mind. In the end judgement was in favour of appellant, Ram
bahadur thapa was acquitted with Sec 79 of IPC.
SEC 79 IPC - Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified,
by law.—Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who
by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes
himself to be justified by law, in doing it.
OBJECTIVE:
Personally, I agree with the judgement. The law cannot expect a person to act rationally when
they are instilled with emotions, such as fear and excitement. This is influenced by their
experience in handling such situations. 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. However the rule cannot be used in an absolute manner. 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.

The ICFAI University, Dehradun: Summer Internship Program 2020

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The ICFAI University, Dehradun: Summer Internship Program 2020

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The ICFAI University , Dehradun

Summer Internship Program 2020

Student’s Name: Pulkit Awasthi

Submitted By: Pulkit Awasthi

Submitted To: Akhilesh Dureja

AIR 1960 Ori 161, 1960 CriLJ 1349

Petitioner: state of Orissa

Respondent: Ram bahadur thapa

Bench: R Narasimham, S Barman

FACTS: According to the case, in village Rasgovindpur, an abandoned aerodrome where

1. Whether Ram Bahadur Thapa was guilty of murder?

You might also like