The case revolves around Mr. Ram Bahadur Thapa, who, on May 20, 1958, in Rasgovindpur village (Balasore district), mistakenly attacked a group of women, believing them to be ghosts. Due to widespread local superstitions among the Adivasi communities, including the Majhis and Santhals, an abandoned airport in the village was thought to be haunted, making people afraid to go near it at night.
On the night of the incident, Thapa, along with Chandra Majhi and Krishna Patro, went to the abandoned airport, hoping to witness spirits. They saw a flickering light, which appeared to move with the wind. Mistaking it for ghosts, Thapa panicked and attacked with a khurki (a sharp tool). Unfortunately, the light was actually a hurricane lamp used by a group of women collecting Mohua flowers. In the attack, Gelhi Majhiani was killed, while Ganga Majhiani, Saunri Majhiani, and Krishna Patro were seriously injured.
As a result, Thapa was charged under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder (Section 302) for Gelhi’s death, grievous hurt (Section 326) for injuring Ganga and Saunri, and voluntarily causing hurt (Section 324) for injuring Krishna Patro. This case highlights the tragic consequences of superstition and mistaken identity, showing how deep-seated cultural beliefs can lead to devastating actions.
Issues
The primary issue in this case is whether the respondent acted carelessly or if their actions were justified under the circumstances. Another important question is whether the respondent can claim protection under Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which provides immunity for acts done in good faith under the belief that they are justified by law. Additionally, the court must consider whether the accused’s position and the circumstances surrounding their actions should be taken into account when determining whether they acted in good faith. These issues are crucial in deciding the respondent’s liability and whether they should be held responsible for their actions.
Arguments
The prosecution argued that while the accused may not have intended harm, he failed to exercise due care and attention, which is a key requirement under Section 52 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Since good faith requires acting with reasonable caution, the accused cannot be presumed to have acted in good faith and must be held accountable for his actions. The High Court of Appeals largely agreed, stating that the concept of due care and attention under the Good Faith provision is subjective and depends on the specific facts, circumstances, and context of each case.
On the other hand, the respondent defended himself by arguing that he genuinely believed he was attacking ghosts, not humans, and therefore had no malicious intent or criminal knowledge. He contended that he was a visitor, unfamiliar with the area, and deeply believed in the local rumors that Rasgovindpur, especially near the airport, was haunted. His belief in ghosts and supernatural forces led him to mistake the victims for spirits when he saw a moving light. Witness testimony also indicated that while the respondent carried a torch, he did not use it due to fear and excitement. Instead, he attacked immediately, without verifying what he saw. The respondent claimed that this reaction demonstrated his sincere belief rather than criminal intent, supporting his argument that he acted in good faith rather than with recklessness.
Analysis of the Court
In this case, the High Court ruled that the accused was protected under Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) because he genuinely believed he was fighting a ghost rather than a human. The court acknowledged that although the accused could have exercised more caution, his actions were based on his good faith belief, which justifies legal protection under this provision. The prosecution witnesses' testimony also supported this conclusion.
Section 79 IPC provides protection when a person mistakenly believes their actions are justified by law and acts without criminal intent. Additionally, Section 52 IPC defines "good faith" as an act done with due care and attention. This means that the accused’s mental state, level of caution, and intent play a crucial role in determining whether their actions are legally excusable. Even if a person’s actions appear wrongful in hindsight, they can still claim protection under Section 79 IPC if they acted with genuine belief and diligence.
As a result, the verdict of acquittal was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that an honest and reasonable mistake of fact can absolve an accused from criminal liability under Section 79 IPC.
