State of Orissa v/s Ram Bahadur Thapa

Facts of State of Orissa vs Ram Bahadur Thapa

Ram Bahadur Thapa was a Nepali servant of Jagat Bandhu Chatterji. Jagat Bandhu Chatterji worked for the firm Chatterji Brothers in Calcutta. This firm purchased aero scrap from Aerodrome. Ram Bahadur Thapa along with his servant went to the village Rasgovindpur situated in the Balasore district of Odisha around April in the year 1958. The village Rasgovindpur had its own story of ghosts roaming around and believed it to be a haunted place. So, the locals who were the Adivasis would refrain from entering that area mostly at night.

In the village Rasgovindpur there was a huge amount of valuable aero scrap because of which the Garrison Engineer of the Defence Department had kept two securities or chowkidars named Dibakar and Govind in charge of the place to prevent the entry of unauthorised persons into the aero scrap area.

Jagat Bandhu and his servant stayed at the house of Krishna Chandra Patro who has a tea stall in the same village.

On 20th May 1958, a resident of village Telkundi – Chandra Majhi visited the tea stall of Krishna Chandra Patro at about 9 at night and was afraid to return to his village at that hour for the fear of ghosts due to which he stayed at the place of Krishna Chandra Patro.

At midnight, both Jagat Bandhu Chatterji and his servant persuaded Krishna Chandra Patro to witness the ghosts out of curiosity and woke up Chandra Majhi to drop him at his village. After they dropped him, they began to return to Rasgovindpur through a footpath across the aerodrome.

While returning they noticed a flickering light at a distance accompanied by a strong breeze which made them more curious and certain about the existence of ghosts nearby. The Nepali servant immediately started attacking the ghosts with his khaki the moment he reached the spot and attacked them indiscriminately and mercilessly. Krishna Chandra Patro arrived at the place later so the Nepali servant didn’t notice him as well which resulted in severe injury caused to the tea stall owner by the khurki blows. 

Krishna Chandra Patro also screamed aloud mentioning that the Nepali servant injured him. The so-called “ghosts” which everyone considered them to be, cried out of distress then after a moment the servant regained his senses and came back to reality. When he did so, he realised that the ghosts he thought of were some female Majhis who with their lanterns were gathered to collect Mohua flowers from the Mohua tree at night.

The attack of the Nepali servant by his khurki resulted in the death of – Gelhi Majhiani and the other two females – Ganga Majhiani and Saunri Majhiani were grievously hurt along with Krishna Chandra Patro.

Issues

Whether the respondent (Ram Bahadur Thapa) should be charged under Section 302, Section 324 and Section 326 of the IPC?

Whether the respondent can seek protection under Section 79 of the IPC?

Judgement

Even though the respondent was charged under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Gelhi Majhiani, under Section 326 IPC for having caused grievous hurt to Saunri Majhiani and Ganga Majhiani and under Section 324 IPC for having caused hurt to Krishna Chandra Patro, since the respondent believed that he was attacking ghosts and not humans, the Sessions Judge of Mayurbhanj held the case in respondent’s favour and acquitted him.

The State of Orrisa challenged the same and in appeal, the Appellant opposed the view stating that the respondent did not act in good faith and he did it without due care and attention taking the help of the definition of ‘Good faith’ under Section 52 of IPC.

However, The Honourable High Court held its judgment in the favour of the learned Sessions Judge and the order of acquittal was confirmed and the appeal was dismissed under Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code. The benefit of section 79 of IPC is provided to a person who because of a mistake of fact in good faith believes himself to be justified by law in doing an act.

Analysis of State of Orissa v/s Ram Bahadur Thapa Judgement

Looking at the facts of the case, the first stance I get of a loophole is of the Security guards who were kept in charge to prevent unauthorised access into the aero scrap area. I believe that there is a negligence of their duty which led to the occurrence of other upcoming events in the case. Had they acted sincerely and supervised the area properly, the whole scenario would have been different.

Moreover, the probability of unforeseen circumstances increases when they know the fact that there is a rumour of ghosts residing. Both the guards Dibakar and Govind’s area of supervision must have been determined and the required actions must have been taken against them if they had been found acting negligently towards their duty.

Secondly, the respondent Ram Bahadur Thapa’s action causing the death of an Adivasi named Gelhi Majhiani is an unfortunate event. In my view, he should not have been acquitted by the court as he did not act with proper care and attention. When a person having a sound mind initiates any harmful act against a person, he must be sure of his actions first.

The respondent should have been extra cautious before attacking someone and an object like khurki which can result in somebody’s death cannot be neglected. We cannot take into consideration his idea of the ghost’s existence and the fear he had in his mind. Although it differs from person to person without ensuring what is to be attacked or be taken defence against off is a matter of a healthy mind. The respondent should not have acted in a certain way that he did because nobody attacked him first nor any harm was done to him. Using his khurki violently without noticing what was standing before him is an act of utter carelessness when they all went off, with torches in their hand.

Moreover, to my knowledge the paranormal world is much different than people who are unaware of its scientific evidence consider it to be. The reality of ghosts is quite different to me. To release from the worldly handcuffs after an insignificant death, they try to communicate to the humans to help them to release from the chains they are confined with. If we dig deep into any paranormal encounter, we can understand the reason for the ghost’s existence.

They do not attack us on purpose unless we have caused harm to them whenever they are living or anyone related to them directly; it’s just their way of seeking help through the noises or any act that causes fear in our minds relating to their existence. Everyone should be kind enough to understand reality before taking any step that could harm others. The karmic cycle revolves around a person in his lifetime anyway.

What I see is, that the respondent should not have been acquitted because he did not ensure himself as to who he was attacking. I do not consider the act of the respondent to be excused under Section 79 of the IPC as a mistake of fact that should not result in the killing of a person resulting in his death.

This article has been contributed by Sriyanka Rath.