State of Orissa Vs Ram Bahadur Thapa

Introduction  

We know, how some of the people from our society are influenced and are under the impressions of different beliefs though that may not be based on the truth which may be called faith, superstition. If any act is done under such faith, belief or superstition by anyone as influenced by it which otherwise seems to be criminal, the question would be, whether the act though prima facies comes Criminal Law, would be covered under the definition of ‘Good Faith’ and also under the concept as ‘Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself, justified, by law’ along with other penal provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860. This is the subject of this present article, case though the issue and subject in the present case, now seems to be interesting, it is also important in criminal law.

Relevant legislations, Legal Provisions and precedents relied on 

• Relevant Legislations and Provisions

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 52, 79
• Precedents relied on
1. Emperor v. Abdool Wadood Ahmed, ILR 31 Bom 293
2. Bhawoo Jiwaji v. Mulji Dayal, ILR 12 Bom 377
3. Po Mye v. The King, 1940 Rang LR 109
4. Waryam Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1926 Lah 554
5. Bouda Kui v. Emperor, AIR 1943 Pat 64.

Brief Facts of case and discussion

• Brief Facts 

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 Jagat Bandhu Chatterjee came there with Nepali servant, Ram Bahadur Thapa for purchasing aeroscrap. 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, one 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.

• Discussion 

The benefit of Sec. 79 I. P. C. is available to person who by reason of mistake of fact in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law in doing an act. In view of the clear evidence of Jagat Bandhu to effect that Ram Bahadur thought that he was attacking ghosts he would be entitled to benefit of that section, unless from the facts and circumstances established in the case it can be reasonably held that he did not act in good faith. Good faith requires due care and attention, but there can be no general standard of care and attention applicable to all persons and under all circumstances.

"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."

"The question of good faith must be considered with reference to the position of the accused and the circumstances under which he acts ..........The law does not expect the same standard of care and attention from all persons regardless of the position they occupy.”

"What is due care and attention depends on the position in which a man finds himself and varies in different cases"

Nepali servant, was new comer to the place and firm believer in ghosts. The aerodrome had acquired notoriety as being haunted by ghosts on Tuesday and Saturdays and this created in him almost a certainty that ghosts would be there at about midnight on that date. The party also left Rasgovindpur for the purpose of seeing the ghosts. Neither the respondent's master Jagat Bandhu nor his landlord, Krishna Chandra made any effort to remove this impression from his mind. On other hand they confirmed that impression by themselves offering to go with him for the purpose of seeing the ghosts. When they noticed the flickering light at a distance of 400 cubits it looked like "will-O'- the wisp" with some apparitions moving round it and Krishna Chandra shouted "Hark, here is the ghost." Thereupon, Ram Bahadur who was highly excited rushed at the light and attacked the figures surrounding it, immediately without pausing even for a moment. Considering the status and intellectual attainments of the respondent and the place and time and the circumstances, it cannot be said that he acted without due care and attention. When even persons with a higher standard of attainments like Krishna Chandra and Jagat Bandhu thought that there were ghosts around the flickering light and when neither of them dissuaded Nepali from going there and when on the other hand Krishna Chandra cried out pointing out that it was a ghost it would not be proper to expect that the Nepali should have paused and examined carefully whether the persons moving round the figures were human beings or not.

His immediate reaction to such a situation was to rush at what he believed to be ghosts. It was then urged that from the evidence of Dibakar and Govind it was clear that the respondent had a torch in his hand and if he had cared to flash the torch at the moving figures around the flickering light he would at once have realised that they were human beings. If there had been any lurking doubt in his mind he would certainly have flashed the torch. But there was no reason for him to entertain any doubt whatsoever about the existence of ghosts and his two companions also not only did not disabuse him of that wrong impression but by their conduct practically confirmed the same.

The learned Sessions Judge was therefore right in acquitting the appellant. The order of acquittal is confirmed and this appeal is dismissed.

Conclusion and importance of case

• Conclusion –

1. The benefit of Sec. 79 I. P. C. is available to person who by reason of mistake of fact in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law in doing an act.
2. Unless from the facts and circumstances established, it can be reasonably held that one did not act in good faith. Good faith requires due care and attention. See Section 52 I. P. C.
3. There can be no general standard of care and attention applicable to all persons and under all circumstances. What is due care and attention depends on the position in which a man finds himself and varies in different cases.
4. 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.
5. The question of good faith must be considered with reference to the position of the accused and the circumstances under which he acts. The law does not expect the same standard of care and attention from all persons regardless of the position they occupy

• Importance 

Hence it would be necessary to educate the people in law and to improve legal-literacy in our society that may help in decreasing crime ratio which may be followed by helping peaceful life and safety, development of society and social awareness.

As illiteracy, ignorance of knowledge and education, superstition, influences of different personalities, poverty etc. are still the problems, difficulties as are facing even at present also, that would be certainly be more severe in nature prior to 50 or 75 years in our society. It is true that the legislation and its enactment is nothing but the outcome of the rules based on the moralities of society, traditions of society to regularise its day-to-day functions, activities to avoid anarchy by protecting the law-abiding persons from the people who violates law deliberately. It happens many times that the persons from our society may take the disadvantage of this impressions of people and use that for their work. Hence the question arises whether the persons who have done that work under such influence, impressions can be held liable under the provisions of the legislation or they would get certain benefits under the exceptions or concepts as defined under enactments. If this aspect is not considering while deciding the cases and are punished then the very purpose of the legislation may come in difficulty as there is most probability of arising anarchy due to possible dais of people from society under the impression that they are being punished for no reason, this impression raising in society would not certainly be called to be sign of good government. Hence is the social importance that can be and is considered here by court.

Even today also, we see and have an experience that some ‘sadhus’, ‘fakirs’, ‘babas’, ‘priests’ etc. have made the business of deceiving the people for their earning. That may be in the name of God / devil etc.by instigating the people with false, incorrect and non-performable assurances only taking disadvantage that they are in difficulty. Sometimes, it happens that there is no any hidden policy, idea or any possibility of getting any benefits to anybody but still due to the faith, belief and superstition, several activities have been performed, done that also are to be prevented.

In Maharashtra there is enactment to remove ‘Andhashraddha’ as The Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013 and prevent, protect society from it by taking recourse of punitive actions against them.