Appellant: State of Orissa

VS.

Respondent: Ram Bahadur Thapa

 Facts of the case:

Rasgovindpur and adjoining regions were backward. The residents of the village mostly
comprise of Santals and Majhis community. The people living there strongly believed in
superstitions. In the village there was an abandoned aerodrome, surrounded by the Adivasi
villages. The Department of defense kept two chowkidars name d Dibakar and Govind to
prevent pilferage. The villagers, due to superstition strongly believed the aerodrome and the
surround area to be infested with ghosts. They also did not take the footpath near aerodrome
inter-connecting other villages late in night because of this fear. Two persons, Jagat Bandhu
Chatarjee and Ram Bahadur Thapa (his nepali servant) came to this village to buy the
aerodrome. They were fascinated by the ghost stories and one night they decided to go there
clear this impression. Therefore, they persuaded Krishna Chandra (Tea vendor) to
accompany them and also took with them Chandra Majhi (Resident of Telkundi village who
was staying at the tea stall of Krishna Chandra for the night because he did not want to go to
the village in night due to fear of ghost) to drop him to his place.
After dropping him,While passing through the camp, they noticed lights flickering at a
distance from the pathway and the breeze blowing in movement of the light made it appear
like a will o’ wisp to them. They also notice apparitions moving around the flickering light.
They thought that the ghosts were dancing around light and therefore ran towards there.

Ram Bahadur Thapa reached first with his ‘Khurki’ and started beating the ghost. Krishna
Chandra Patro arrived sometime later but Ram Bahadur Thapa did not notice him and one of
his Khurki blows caused severe injury to him. Owing to the injury, he screamed out loud.
After this, the other injured persons cried out of distress and he stopped attacking people. It
was found that the persons he was attacking were not ghosts but female Majhis, who were
there to collect ‘Mohua’ flowers and were carrying hurricane lantern. In consequence of
 Khurki attacks, one female named, Gelhi Majhiani was killed, others, Ganga and Saunri
Majihani were grievously injured. Krishna Patro was also injured.

 Charges Framed:

Ram Bahadur was charged under section 302, 326 and 324 of the IPC for the murder of Gelhi
Majhiani, for causing grievous hurt to Saunri and causing hurt to Krishna Patro.

 Sessions Judge acquitted Ram Bahadur Thapa giving him the benefit of Sec 79 of IPC, i.e., it
was a bona-fide mistake of facts, relying on which he acted like this
 Issues:
1.) Whether the benefit of Sec 79 of IPC should be granted to the accused?
 Arguments Advanced:

The Prosecution argued that it is clear, that the accuse lack mens rea and intention for the
commission of offense. He also lacked requisite knowledge and fairly believed that he was
attacking ghosts. But, the facts and circumstances show that he did not acted with due care
and precaution. The accused was carrying a torch with him, if he had flashed the torch light
there, his doubts would have gotten clear about the ghosts. Nor did he try to ascertain the
situation; he just ran to the spot and started beating the victims.

 Judgment:
The benefit of Section 79 of IPC 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. The act of the accused will
be punishable if it can be established through facts and circumstances that he was not acting
in good faith, i.e., he lacked due care and attention. The intellect and capacity of Ram
Bahadur was such that he believed in the existence of ghost and when he saw those persons
in the night, the circumstance made him perceive them as ghost. Therefore, he acted and beat
those women in persuasion of his belief that he was beating a ghost at that time, therefore, it
cannot be said that he acted without due care and attention.

It was then urged 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.
 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. 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:
1) Application of section 79, it is available to person who acting in good faith, believes him-
self to be justified by law in doing that act.
2) Unless facts and circumstances contradict each other it should be assumed that the
accused acted in good faith, i.e., with due care and attention. (Section 52 of IPC)
3) Good faith and precaution are subjective in nature, depending on the position of accused
and the circumstanced in which he acted.