Scribd
Upload
2K views2 pages

State of Orissa Vs Baghban Barik

The respondent claimed right of private defense after his bell-metal utensil was stolen. That night, when the deceased approached his house, the respondent struck the deceased's head with a lathi in mistaken belief that he was the thief. The court found that the respondent lacked good faith as he followed and struck the deceased with such force that it caused his death. Section 79 did not apply as the respondent's mistake of fact and act were not reasonable or in good faith. The court convicted the respondent under Section 304A of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Uploaded by

Rajat Chawda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views2 pages

State of Orissa Vs Baghban Barik

The respondent claimed right of private defense after his bell-metal utensil was stolen. That night, when the deceased approached his house, the respondent struck the deceased's head with a lathi in mistaken belief that he was the thief. The court found that the respondent lacked good faith as he followed and struck the deceased with such force that it caused his death. Section 79 did not apply as the respondent's mistake of fact and act were not reasonable or in good faith. The court convicted the respondent under Section 304A of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Uploaded by

Rajat Chawda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

State of Orissa vs Baghban Barik

Facts:

The relationship between the deceased and the respondent were strained. Decease came to
neighbor of the respondent for the Baghbat recital which was attended by the respondent too.
Bell-metal utensil stolen from the house of the respondent in daytime and he was keeping a
watch for the same in the night for the thief, when the deceased came near his house, the
respondent inflicted lathi blow with full force on deceased's head causing his death.

Issue:

Whether right of private defense available?

Whether Section 79 can be used in this case?

Whether the respondent is liable under Section 304A of IPC?

Arguments Advanced:

The respondent justified his action as an act of self defense, whereby he gave lathi blow thinking
the deceased to be the thief, who came there to take away the bell-metal utensil. It was a mistake
of fact that he was not aware of the identity of the deceased and he acted in good faith to prevent
the thief from running away.

Judgment:

Section 79 exonerates a wrongful conduct which resulted because of an act carried under the
mistake of fact and the person believes it to be justified by law. The act should also be carried
out in good faith, implying that the act should be carried out with due care and attention. In the
particular facts and circumstances, the mistake of fact and the act in good faith are not
established. The respondent following the deceased, then after getting a appropriate chance
giving a lathi blow, clearly indicates that he was aware of what he was doing (being unaware of
the identity of a person is completely irrelevant here). The force with which the blow was
inflicted and the medical reports clearly indicates that the respondent lacked the good faith while
giving the blow and the blow was such a grievous nature that resulted in his death. Under
Section 79, the law is stated in these words: "Mistake can be admitted as a defense provided (1)
that the state of things believed to exist would, if true, have justified the act done, and (2) the
mistake must be reasonable, and (3) that the mistake relates to fact and not to law.

Therefore, under Section 79, the act of the respondent is not justifiable and it was not reasonable
on his part to act so rashly, and hence, the respondent is convicted under Section 304A of IPC,
i.e., Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder.

Learning Outcome:
1. Application and constituent elements of Section 79.
2. Meaning and scope of due care and attention.

You might also like