Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Bombay High Court laid down the conditions when Section 79 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) can be invoked. 
• Section 79 of IPC provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who by mistake of fact and not by mistake of law believes himself to be justified by law.   

Facts 

• Chirangi Lohar (widower) lived with his unmarried daughter, only son Ghudasai and nephew Khotla lived together in Bastar district. 
• They had cordial relations with each other and Ghudsai was considerate towards his father who had abcess in his leg. 
• One afternoon Chirangi took ana xe and went with Ghudsai to the nearby hillock in order to gather ‘siadi’ leaves. 
• In the evening Ghudsai was nowhere to be found. Chirangi when questioned said that he had become insane and killed his son. He said that it occurred to him that a tiger had come to him and he dealt blows with the axe. 
• He narrated the same version to mukaddam and also told the same to the ‘kotwar’. 
• The body of Ghudsai was found on hillock and the autopsy showed that Ghudsai had incised wounds on the right temple, neck and left humerus with a comminuted fracture of the right temporal bone. 
• Further injuries were also found on the body of Chirangi and he explained that he had sustained the injuries by falling on a stone and that because of madness he did not know what had happened at the hillock. 
• It was the case of Chirangi that he had ‘bonafide’ mistaken his son for a magic tiger and was incapable of knowing the nature of his act. 
• The Trial Court held that there was no mistake of fact and hence the Court convicted and sentenced Chirangini under Section 302 of IPC. 
• Thus, the matter was before the Bombay High Court.  

Issue Involved  

• Whether the conviction of Chirangi can be set aside by the virtue of Section 79 of IPC?  

Observations 

• The four assessors in this case unanimously opined that Chirangi had actually mistaken his son for a tiger and that he acted under a ‘bona fide’ mistake of fact in a fit of temporary insanity.  
• The Court further examined Dr. KC Dube whose testimony showed that he was suffering from bilateral cataract prior to the relevant date and hence there was a bonafide mistake on his part. 
• Dr. Dube further opined that Chirangi’s fall combined with the existing physical ailments could have produced a state of mind in which he in good faith thought that the object of his attack was a tiger and was not his son. 
• The Court in this case considered the two judgments whose facts it was observed were ‘in part materia’ with the case at hand: 
  • Waryam Singh v. Emperor (1926) 
    • The Court in this case that the accused who killed a man with several blows was not liable under Section 302, 304 or 304A of IPC because he believed in good faith at the time of attack that the object of his assault was not a living human being but a ghost. 
    • The Court held that ‘mens rea’ to commit the offence did not exist in this case and the object of culpable homicide could only be a living being.    
  • Bonda Kui v. Emperor (1943) 
    • The Court again in this case held that the accused was justified in killing the deceased as she did not consider the deceased to be a human being but only a thing that devoured on human beings. 
• The Court held that Chirangi in this case committed the act in a moment of delusion considering that his target was a tiger and he accordingly assailed it with his axe. 
• Thus, the facts in this case were similar to the cases cited above and the Court held that in these circumstances the Chirangi by reason of mistake of fact was justified in destroying the deceased whom he did not regard to be a human being but who he thought was a dangerous animal. 
• Thus, the Court held that the accused in this case would be protected by Section 79 of IPC.  
• Accordingly, the Court set aside the sentence and conviction of the accused person.  

Conclusion 

• The Court in this case laid down the law as to when the provision under Section 79 of IPC can be invoked. 
• The Court held that where a person killed somebody whom he thought to be dangerous animal he would be protected by virtue of Section 79 of IPC as it can be said that the act was done by reason of mistake of faith by a person who believes himself to be justified by law.