About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

24 Supremo Amicus [1] (2021)

handle is hein.journals/supami24 and id is 1 raw text is: SUPREMO AMICUS VOLUME 24 ISSN 2456-9704 PERCEPTIVE ANALYSI CONCEPT OF GOOD FAI RESPECT TO SECTION 7 THE LIGHT OF STATE OF RAM BAHADUR TH By Vidhi Gupta From Maharaja Agrasen Management Studies, Rohini S OF THE TH WITH 9 IPC - IN of good faith and the parameters that define it. ORISSA v. Brief Facts APA Jagat Bandhu Chatterjee came to Rasgovindpur in Orissa with his Nepali servant, Ram Bahadur Thapa for purchasing Institute of an aeroscrape located there. CITATION AIR 1960 Ori 161, 1960 CriLJ 1349 NAME OF High Court of Orissa THE COURT BENCH Justice R Narasimhan and Justice S Barman DATE OF 09th November 1959 DECISION RELEVANT Section 79, Section ACTS/ 302, Section 326, SECTIONS Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 INTRODUCTION The concept of Mistake of Fact under the law has been accepted by various legislations worldwide. Various jurists have inferred different understanding of this law and have tried to analyse the subjective or objective applicability of the concept of good faith in the Indian Jurisprudence. The present case of Ram Bahadur Thapa elucidates the concept 'State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa, AIR 1960 Ori 161: 1960 Cr LJ 1349 Around midnight of May 20th 1958, to corroborate the belief of the village locals with respect to the presence of ghosts on specific nights in a week in an area near a deserted aerodrome in the village, the Respondent, Ram Bahadur Thapa along with his employer Mr Jagat Bandhu Chatterjee and their landlord Krishna Chandra Patro had visited the aerodrome area in the village of Rasgovindpur in Orissa. Upon reaching the location, all of the three above-named people saw something similar to a ghost in flickering light and the Respondent haphazardly attacked the figures with his khurki. Eventually, it was discovered that the figures at whom the Respondent attacked were women of a nearby village who were out to collect the mohua flowers during midnight using a hurricane lantern. The act of the Respondent led to the death of Gelhi Majhiani and caused grievous injuries to Ganga Majhiani and Saunri Majhiani. The landlord, Krishna Chandra Patro also got injured during this attack. The Respondent was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for causing the Murder2 of Gelhi Majhiani, under 2The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860) s. 300 www.supremoamicus.org PIF 6.242

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most