The article written by Ms Alka Bano is a legal practitioner in the Central Bar Association of Varanasi. I had completed my graduation in B.COM LL.B from Mahatma Gandhi Kasi Vidyapith and LL.M from National Law University, Jodhpur.

Judgement 9 nov 1959

AIR 1960 ORI 60 CriLJ 1349

Bench R Narasimham, S Barman

FACTS IN BRIEFS:

The matter concerns Mr Ram Bahadur Thapa, the accused who mistakenly attacked Gelhi Majhiani, causing her death, and also caused grievous injury to Ganga Majhiani and Saunri Majhiani, whom he wrongly assumed to be ghosts.

The incident took place on May 20th 1958 in Rasgovindpur, a village located in Balasore district. The area is home to an abandoned aerodrome and Adivasi villages, mainly inhabited by Santhals and Majhis. These people have a strong belief in ghosts and the deserted aerodrome has gained notoriety in the area as being infested with them. As a result, the villagers usually do not venture out alone at night.

Jagat Bandhu Chatterjee, accompanied by his Nepali servant, Ram Bahadur Thapa (the accused), their landlord Krishna Chandra Patro, and Chandra Majhi, a resident of Telkundi village, were interested in seeing the ghosts in the abandoned aerodrome area.

Upon reaching the area, the four noticed a flickering light that, due to the strong breeze, began to move, creating a fear of apparitions moving around the flickering light. Perceiving it as ghosts dancing around the light, Ram Bahadur Thapa attacked indiscriminately with his “Khurki.” It was later discovered that the people he attacked were some female Majhis from the locality who were collecting ‘Mohua’ flowers under a tree with a hurricane lantern at that hour of night.

As a result of the accused’s indiscriminate attack, Gelhi Majhani was killed, and two other females, Ganga Majhiani and Saunri Majhiani, were grievously injured. Additionally, Krishna Chandra Patro was also injured.

Based on these facts, Ram Bahadur Thapa was charged under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Gelhi Majhiani, under section 326 of the IPC for causing grievous hurt to Ganga Majhiani and Saunri Majhiani, and under section 324 of the IPC for causing hurt to Krishna Chandra Patro.

FACTS IN ISSUES

1. That the matter was raised on appeal that the Court of Session acquitted the accused who was charged under section 302, 326 and 324 of Indian penal code 1860 was valid.
2. That the act of an accused can be placed under good faith.
3. That the act of an accused is protected under section 79 of Indian penal code.

ARGUMENTS:

Accused View:

• That the session judge’s decision to acquit was primarily based on the grounds of a provision of general exception that is a mistake of fact justified by law under section 79 of IPC.
• That the respondent argued that they committed the act in question believing they were attacking apparitions and had no intention of causing harm to any person. 
• That they claimed that they lacked criminal intent or knowledge and genuinely thought they were attacking or killing ghosts.
• That furthermore, the Acuuaed claimed that they were a newcomer to the area and a firm believer in ghosts. 
• That they had heard that the village Rasgovindpur, particularly the aerodrome area, was haunted, which caused an obsession with the idea of ghosts. When they saw a moving light, they immediately attacked without pausing to think, believing it to be a ghost. 
• That the Witnesses testified the Accused had a torch but did not use it due to fear and excitement, which further supports their claim of good faith.

prosecution argue:

• That the prosecution argued that even though the Accused lacked intent, they did not act with due care and attention, which negates the idea of good faith and makes them liable for the offense.
• The High Court partially agreed with the prosecution, stating that the concept of duty of care falls under the umbrella of good faith under section 52 of IPC. However, the standard of care required varies from case to case, depending on the individual’s intellect and the time, place, and circumstances surrounding the incident.

Referring Leading Case Laws

The court held in relation to this case by referring to two landmark case law that is Waryam Singh v. Emperor AIR1926 and Bonda Kui v. Emperor 1943 that the accused, who was accused of mistakenly killing someone they believed to be a ghost, was granted protection by the court under Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code. In such cases, the court has clarified that if there is no intention to commit a crime or Mens Rea, then no offence has been committed. The act of culpable homicide can only be attributed to a living human being.

Judgement

High Court dismissed appeal and upheld session court judgement and acquitted the accused by validating and providing protection of an accused under section 79 of Indian Penal code.

Critical analysis of the case

The safeguard provided by this provision is applicable to those who have committed an offence unknowingly and in good faith. According to section 52 of the IPC, good faith is defined as “anything considered to be done or believed in good faith if it is done or believed to be done with the necessary care and attention.”The court defined good faith in the level of caution and prudence should be evaluated based on the competence and intellect of the individual whose actions are being scrutinised. It is reasonable to anticipate that the unbiased conclusions of a composed and logical individual may considerably deviate from the unbiased conclusions of an individual who is impassioned by sectarian fervour and lacks the aptitude for rational thinking.

Therefore, to invoke section 79 of the IPC, due care and attention are essential. It can be argued that there is no universal standard for due care and attention. It varies from person to person based on their beliefs & psychological outlook. 

However, a common benchmark can be established based on the circumstances under which the accused committed the act.

In the present case, the respondent Ram Bahadur Thapa, who believes in ghosts, mistook the flickering lights for ghosts and attacked them without even taking a moment to use his torch to determine whether they were ghosts or humans. This demonstrates that he did not have any mens rea and that it was a misunderstanding of the facts, which can be considered reasonable under section 79 of the IPC.