This Case Commentary is written by Harshit Sagar, a First-Year law student of Campus Law Center, Faculty of Law,UoD

Case Title: State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa

Citation: AIR 1959 Ori 152, 25 (1959) CLT 105

Court: Orissa High Court

Judges: Chief Justice Narasimham and Justice Mohapatra

Date of Judgment:1959

Facts of the case:

The accused was a Gorkha soldier from Nepal, living in a village in the state of Orissa. At this time, a series of superstitious rumors had gripped this very village that a ghost was haunting the place. Such rumors created an all-round fear amongst the villagers who believed in the existence of such ghosts. Being also a very superstitious man, Thapa was deceived by such rumors.

A villager who had heard of the "ghost" accosted Thapa and instilled further fear within him. The informant told him that the ghost was really inside a forest near the area and was responsible for several strange happenings. He convinced Thapa to do something to confront and "destroy" the ghost. Thapa, based on his superstitious perception, was ready to embark on a hunting mission to search for the ghost and kill it; according to him, he was doing good to the community.

The Deadly Night:

On the fateful night, the informant Ram Bahadur Thapa and two other companions ventured to the forest in search of the ghost. Duly armed with a sharp weapon - likely a khukuri, the traditional Gorkha knife - they ventured into the dark forest in anticipation of finding the ghost.

On the way, while doing so, during the same night, the group crossed three women, who were returning from the local market. A path that led to the forest had some items carried by some women who were walking back home. Because of the darkness and their heightened state of fear and superstition, Thapa and his companions began mistakenly identifying the women with the ghosts they set out to find. When Thapa and his companions were in this paranoid state, they thought those figures before them were supernatural beings.

Without hesitation, Thapa killed one of the women with his weapon. The other two ran off to the distance, horrified by the attack, but came back later to report the incident to the people in authority.

Aftermath:

The realism gradually dawned that the "ghost" was after all an innocent woman. He was arrested and brought before the court of law for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. His plea, however, was on the lines that he believed that the woman was a ghost, and in his mistaken belief of the fact that she was acting as one, he claimed protection u/s 79 of the IPC.

Legal Issues

In the case of State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa, the question of law depends upon the applicability of Section 79 of the IPC, which provides a defense for acts done under mistake of fact and in good faith. This was a specific question of whether the killing of a woman by Ram Bahadur Thapa, believing her to be a ghost, could amount to a legal mistake of fact under the 'law' and be exempted from criminal liability on that ground under Section 302 IPC (murder).

Important Legal Issues

1. Is the accused's belief that the woman is a ghost a mistake of fact under Section 79 IPC?

2. Whether he made the killing in the reasonable belief that the woman was doing so, such as to bring him within the legal immunity of section 79.

Contentions

The primary issues in this appeal revolved around whether the accused, Ram Bahadur Thapa, could succeed in his plea of mistake of fact under Section 79, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and whether his intent or act could be held exculpated from guilt because he genuinely believed it was a ghost he was killing, not a human being.

Prosecution contentions

1. Thapa Committed Murder: The main submission of the prosecution was that Ram Bahadur Thapa had made a deliberate intention and kill a woman with a sharp weapon, most probably a khukuri. Such an act, it is submitted, falls in the category of nothing less than murder under Section 302 of the IPC which prescribes the punishments of imprisonment for life or death.

2. Irrational Belief in Ghost: It was urged by the prosecution that Thapa had an unreasonable belief that the woman was a ghost, which was superstitious and unreasonable. The prosecution pleaded further that no reasonable person could ever mistake a ghost for a living human being, and therefore, he ought not to have been justified under the law to raise this defense of belief in such a highly irrational belief.

3. Section 79 IPC not applicable Section 79 IPC is an exception which provides that acts done in good faith under a mistaken notion of fact and the prosecution argued that section 79 IPC does not come into consideration in the present case. They highlighted the following points:

That Thapa's belief of ghosts was nothing but superstition belief, and it could not for a moment be permitted under the law.

The law does not believe in the existence of supernatural beings such as ghosts, and the beliefs cannot be reasonably held under Indian jurisprudence.

The belief must be rational and reasonable, and Thapa's belief cannot be deemed to fulfill that requirement in the slightest.

4. The prosecution had also contended that Thapa had not acted in good faith as mandated under Section 79 IPC. They pointed to the following:

He had not taken any precautionary measure to establish whether the lady was a ghost or a human being before rushing into attacking her.

He had acted from fear and superstition rather than reasoning with any common sense or care and attention.

For the defense of good faith to prevail, the person on trial ought to have had due care and attention. In this case, there is clear evidence that Thapa had neither care nor attention before committing the fatal act.

Defense Arguments

1. Actual but Mistaken Belief: Defense argued that Ram Bahadur Thapa had believed the lady whom he killed to be a ghost. They pleaded that Thapa acted on the influence of an actual but mistaken belief of fact and, hence ought not to be held criminally liable for his acts. They gave a lot of credence to the facts that:

Thapa's belief was a truthful one and premised on the prevalent superstition in the village.

This was because people in the village were talking about a ghost haunting this region, and Thapa being a very superstitious man must have been of the genuine opinion that he was confronting a ghost when he attacked the woman.

Being a villager Thapa thought that he was attacking a ghost and not a human; hence his acts must be excused under Section 79 IPC, which gives a defense to the acts done under mistake of fact.

2. Act Done in Good Faith: Thapa's defense assertion is that Thapa acted in good faith without malice. They postulated that:

Thapa never had a design to kill a human being. However, he intended to save himself and others from what he thought was a ghost.

He felt that he was servicing the community by confronting and eliminating the supernatural threat that had been creating fear and anxiety among others within the village.

His belief was based on superstitions and the cultural context of the village, and therefore, his actions should be viewed as those of a person who sincerely believed he had a right to act the way he did.

3. Section 79 IPC Defense: The respondent argues that the requirements of Section 79 IPC were fulfilled in this case. They argued that:

Thapa acted under a mistake of fact (he believed the woman to be a ghost), not under a mistake of law.

His error was sincere and made in good faith; there was no cause for him to mistrust what he saw except that the apparition he saw must be the same ghost that was menacing the village.

With Section 79 on the side of those who, under a mistaken belief of fact, act in good faith, Thapa has a right to immunity from criminal liability for the act of killing the woman.

4.. No Criminal Intent (Mens Rea): Mens rea refers to the intention to kill somebody. In this case, Thapa did not have the mens rea to commit murder. He wanted to confront the ghost he thought was there, and not to murder a human being. Since criminal intent forms an essential element of murder, there was no criminal liability on Thapa for the murder.

Legal Provisions Involved

1. Section 302, IPC: It deals with the punishment for murder.

In the present decision, two cases under the Indian Penal Code, vis-a-vis, Section 302 and Section 79, IPC will be taken into consideration.

2. Section 79, IPC: Provides immunity for acts done in good faith under the mistaken belief of fact.

Judgment

On facts, the Orissa High Court did well to hold that Ram Bahadur Thapa could not claim protection under Section 79 of the IPC. The court held that the belief of Thapa that the woman was a ghost was, certainly not one which was rational, and killing a person upon such superstition or opinion could not be justified or condoned by law.

The court ruled that the mistaken belief has to be reasonable and also based on rational grounds for the protection under Section 79 to apply. Here, it was considered irrational and unreasonable to believe that a human being could turn out to be a ghost. Consequently, this plea of mistaken belief went in vain and Thapa was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the IPC.

Important Observations by the Court

1. Superstitious Beliefs and Law: It came to the court's notice that superstition cannot offer any reason for defense under Section 79. A man who believed in ghosts or spirits without reason or rationality could not be exonerated of a charge of murder.

2. The Mistake must be Both Created and held Reasonably: For section 79 to apply, there must be a reasonable belief in a mistaken fact. The court felt that Thapa's mistaken belief that the women were ghosts was unreasonable and thus not available as a defense.

3. Public Policy Consideration: The court also deliberated the big-time implications of allowing a defense based on superstition to go through. The very day such a verdict came from the judiciary the doors would have opened for other crimes to be committed the next day, be it in Rajasthan or another part of the country, under similar pretexts of superstition-anarchy and lawlessness.

Conclusion

This judgment had made explicit the fact that defense of mistake of fact under Section 79 IPC cannot be resorted to or urged in cases where belief is founded on superstition and unreason. The case is widely cited as an illustration of the attitude of the Indian judiciary to deal with superstition and irrational beliefs in criminal law while underlining the requirements of rationality and reasonableness in interpretation.

Effect of the Case

It brings in a feature of how the traditional beliefs clash with the modern principles of law regarding Indian jurisprudence. The case, as based on the judgment rendered, underlines the role of the court, discouraging harmful superstitions that lead to criminal acts, and reiterating rational thinking upon the system of law as well. It also becomes a landmark case to decide the extent of the defense of mistake of fact under Section 79 of the IPC.