Case Brief: State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa | Criminal Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• Court: Orissa High Court
• Citations: AIR 1960 Ori 161, 1960 CriLJ 1349
• Bench: R Narasimham, S Barman
• Theme: Mistake of fact being a ground for acquittal
• Subject: Criminal Law
• Judgement: India

Facts in State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa

• The case of State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa involves a situation where the respondent mistakenly attacked and killed women, believing them to be ghosts.
• On a specific night in 1958, the respondent, along with his employer and their landlord, went to investigate claims of ghostly apparitions near an abandoned aerodrome in Orissa.
• Thinking the women collecting flowers in the area were ghosts, the respondent attacked them, resulting in the death of one woman and injuries to others.
• Charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the respondent was acquitted by the Sessions Judge based on a bona fide mistake of fact under Section 79 IPC.
• The High Court judges upheld the acquittal, leading to the central issue of whether the acquittal was justified based on the mistake of fact made in good faith and whether the standard of care was met.

Key Points in State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa

• The incident involved the mistaken attack by the respondent on women, thinking they were ghosts.
• The attack resulted in the death of one woman and injuries to others.
• Legal charges under various sections of the IPC were brought against the respondent.
• The Sessions Judge's decision to acquit the respondent was based on a genuine mistake of fact under Section 79 IPC.
• The High Court's decision to uphold the acquittal raised questions regarding the justification of the mistake of fact and the fulfillment of the standard of care.

Arguments

• The Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent based on a genuine mistake of fact under Section 79 IPC. The respondent believed he was attacking ghosts, not people, therefore lacking the intention to cause harm.
• The Prosecution argued that even without intent, the respondent should have exercised "due care and attention," making him accountable for his actions.
• Justice R Narasimham, in the appellant Court, partially agreed. He linked the concept of duty of care to good faith under Section 52 of IPC. Additionally, he emphasized that the standard of care varies depending on individual circumstances. In the case of Emperor v. Abdeol Wadood Ahmed, it was established that the accused's capacity and intelligence must be taken into account when determining the standard of care.
• The respondent's strong belief in ghosts influenced his actions, as seen in his immediate attack on the figures. Several factors, such as being new to the area, the incident occurring on a night associated with supernatural occurrences, and his intent to encounter ghosts, contributed to his conviction. The credibility of the situation was further reinforced by the reactions of Mr. Chatterjee and Mr. Majhi, who did not intervene to correct the respondent's perception. The judge reasoned that it was unreasonable to expect the respondent to verify the identities of the figures after he had already identified them as ghosts.

Judgement: State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa

• The Orissa High Court Judges supported the prior decision of the respondent's acquittal by the Sessions Court Judge.

Present Status

• This judgement is currently in effect.

Conclusion

• Personally, I concur with the ruling. The law cannot always anticipate individuals to act rationally, especially when emotions like fear and excitement are involved. This behavior is often shaped by their past experiences in similar circumstances. However, this principle cannot be applied universally.
• For instance, in the context of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, a rational individual would take precautions to prevent the spread of the virus by practicing isolation, wearing masks, and maintaining proper hygiene. On the contrary, someone who denies the existence of germs may neglect these measures, refuse to get tested despite showing symptoms, and inadvertently spread the virus due to their ignorance. In such a scenario, they might not be held accountable under the law due to their misguided beliefs and negligence.