CASE STUDY ON TYPES OF HOMICIDE LAW IN NEPAL

(2015-2078)
A Term paper

Summited to:
LLM Associated prof Dr. Ramesh Prasad Parajuli
Nepal law campus
Tribhuvan University

Submitted by
Kabita Sharma Adhikari
Llm\2nd semester
Day shift Roll no:2
1
 Table of content

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...

1.1Justifiable or Excusable Homicide…………………………………………………

1.2 Other Defenses…………………………………………………………..………
2. Categories of Culpable Homicide
(a) Murder
(b) manslaughter /(Manslaughter under Mitigated Circumstance

List of the case

 Appellant / Plaintiff: Purna Bahadur Rawat against the government of Nepal

Against Defendant / Defendant: Grandson of Dhanveer Kanwar, son of Bal Bahadur
Kanwar, District Rolpa Sabik Nuwagaon Village, Ward no. Kaviram Kanwar who lives
(075-CR-0043Case:- homicide (prevocational homicide) Nkp Dec no 10553

 Appellant/Respondent: Sonu Halwai residing in Ward No. 5, District Banke, Nepalganj

Municipality and currently incarcerated in Prison Office Nepalganj Against Plaintiff:
Government of Nepal by Ajay Shrestha's complaint( kidnapping and murder)

 Plaintiff, Appellant: Resham Lal Makju Shrestha Against

Opponent, Defendant: Parelal Madbari also(homicide)

 Appellant/plaintiff: Government of Nepal by complaint of Jokhan Pasi

Against Defendant/Defendant: Ruppandehi District Raipur G.V.S. Ward no. 5 Ramavati

Passi(homicide)

 Appellant Defendant: Charles Gurmukh Sobraj, son of Bhawani Sobraj, 20 Avenue

“Ivry” 75013 Paris France Ghar Bhai Presently detained at Prison Branch, Jagannath
Deval, Kathmandu Against Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF Nepal(Decision no 10028)

2
 Appellant/Respondent: Sonu Halwai residing in Ward No. 5, District Banke, Nepalganj
Municipality and currently incarcerated in Prison Office Nepalganj Against Plaintiff:
Government of Nepal by Ajay Shrestha's complaint.4(homicide)

3
Introduction
The killing of one human being by another human being.
Although the term homicide is sometimes used synonymously with murder, homicide is broader 
in scope than murder. Murder is a form of criminal homicide; other forms of homicide might not 
constitute criminal acts. These homicides are regarded as justified or excusable. For example, ind
ividuals may, in a necessary act of SelfDefense, kill a person who threatens them with death or s
erious injury, or they may be commanded or authorized by law to kill a person who is a member 
of an enemy force or who has committed a serious crime. Typically, the circumstances surroundi
ng a killing determine whether it is criminal. The intent of the killer usually determines whether 
a criminal homicide is classified as murder or Manslaughter and at what degree.
English courts developed the body of CommonLaw on which U.S. jurisdictions initially relied in 
developing their homicide statutes. Early English common law divided homicide into two broad 
categories: felonious and nonfelonious. Historically, the deliberate and premeditated killing of a 
person by another person was a felonious homicide and was classified as murder. Non
felonious homicide included justifiable homicide and excusable homicide. Although justifiable h
omicide was considered a crime, the offender often received a pardon. Excusable homicide was n
ot considered a crime.
Under the early common law, murder was a felony that was punishable by death. It was defined 
as the unlawful killing of a person with "malice aforethought," which was generally defined as a 
premeditated intent to kill. As U.S. courts and jurisdictions adopted the English common law and 
modified the various circumstances that constituted criminal homicide, various degrees of crimin
al homicide developed. Modern statutes generally divide criminal homicide into two broad categ
ories: murder and manslaughter. Murder is usually further divided into the first degree, which typ
ically involves a premeditated intent to kill, and the second degree, which typically does not invo
lve a premeditated intent to kill. Manslaughter typically involves an unintentional killing that res
ulted from a person's criminal negligence or reckless disregard for human life.
All homicides require the killing of a living person. In most states, the killing of a viable fetus is 
generally not considered a homicide unless the fetus is first born alive. In some states, however, t
his distinction is disregarded and the killing of an unborn viable fetus is classified as homicide. I
n other states, statutes separately classify the killing of a fetus as the crime of feticide.
Generally, the law requires that the death of the person occur within a year and a day of the fatal 
injury. This requirement initially reflected a difficulty in determining whether an initial injury led 
to a person's death, or whether other events or circumstances intervened to cause the person's dea
th. As Forensic
Science has developed and the difficulty in determining cause of death has diminished, many stat
es have modified or abrogated the year-and-a-day rule.

 Justifiable or Excusable Homicide

4
A homicide may be justifiable or excusable by the surrounding circumstances. In such cases, the 
homicide will not be considered a criminal act. A justifiable homicide is a homicide that is comm
anded or authorized by law. For instance, soldiers in a time of war may be commanded to kill en
emy soldiers. Generally, such killings are considered justifiable homicide unless other circumsta
nces suggest that they were not necessary or that they were not within the scope of the soldiers' d
uty. In addition, a public official is justified in carrying out a death sentence because the executio
n is commanded by state or federal law.
A person is authorized to kill another person in self-defense or in the defense of others, but only i
f the person reasonably believes that the killing is absolutely necessary in order to prevent seriou
s harm or death to himself or herself or to others. If the threatened harm can be avoided with reas
onable safety, some states require the person to retreat before using Deadly
Force. Most states do not require retreat if the individual is attacked or threatened in his or her ho
me, place of employment, or place of business. In addition, some states do not require a person t
o retreat unless that person in some way provoked the threat of harm. Finally, police officers may 
use deadly force to stop or apprehend a fleeing felon, but only if the suspect is armed or has com
mitted a crime that involved the infliction or threatened infliction of serious injury or death. A po
lice officer may not use deadly force to apprehend or stop an individual who has committed, or is 
committing, a misdemeanor offense. Only certain felonies are considered in determining whether 
deadly force may be used to apprehend or stop a suspect. For instance, a police officer may not u
se deadly force to prevent the commission of Larceny unless other circumstances threaten him or 
other persons with imminent serious injury or death.
Excusable homicide is sometimes distinguished from justifiable homicide on the basis that it inv
olves some fault on the part of the person who ultimately uses deadly force. For instance, if a per
son provokes a fight and subsequently withdraws from it but, out of necessity and in self-
defense, ultimately kills the other person, the homicide is sometimes classified as excusable, rath
er than justifiable. Generally, however, the distinction between justifiable homicide and excusabl
e homicide has largely disappeared, and only the term justifiable homicide is widely used.

Other Defenses
Other legal defenses to a charge of criminal homicide include insanity, necessity, accident, and i
ntoxication. Some of these defenses may provide an absolute defense to a charge of criminal ho
micide; some will not. For instance, a successful defense of voluntary intoxication generally will 
allow an individual to avoid prosecution for a premeditated murder, but typically it will not allow 
an individual to escape liability for any lesser charges, such as second-degree murder or manslau
ghter. As with any defense to a criminal charge, the accused's mental state will be a critical deter
minant of whether he or she had the requisite intent or mental capacity to commit a criminal hom
icide.1

1
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homicide

5
 2. Categories of Culpable Homicide
• The concept of culpable homicide, its categories and essential ingredients are considered as the
fundamental and basic issues of the homicide law. Around the periphery of these concepts and
notions the law of homicide has been developed and evolved from primitive state communities to
the modern developed societies. Culpable homicide means the causing death of another culpably
and unlawfully and is regarded as the most serious and heinous offence in criminal
jurisprudences.The reason for this is not difficult to find that the harm caused by many others
crimes are remediable to some degree, whereas the harm caused by culpable homicide is
absolutely irremediable. Even in crime of violence, which leave some permanent physical
disfigurement or sometimes psychological effect upon the victims, but he or she remains alive
with a possibility of further recovery and achievement t whereas in culpable homicide life is
ceased and death is final. Once life is lost, the status quo ante cannot be restored as resurrection
is beyond the capacity of human being. Thus, this finality makes it proper to regard death as the
most serious harm that may be inflicted on human being. In modern criminal jurisprudence,
homicides are termed culpable when they are not justified or excused by the law. And the actor
is criminally liable for causing such homicides. In other terms, homicides are culpable unless
they are justified or excused by the law and there are the punishments for causing them.
The categorization of crimes and its seriousness in modern law of offence against the person is
based on three criteria (i) the harm done
(ii) the degree of culpability with which the harm was done - causing death is a graver offence
than causing serious bodily harm and
(iii)the weapon used or modus operandi. The degree of culpability required is either an intention
to cause the particular degree of harm or knowledge or recklessness whether that degree of harm
be caused. Thus, a person is to be held liable only if he either deliberately caused that degree of
harm or he deliberately took an unjustifiable risk of causing that degree of harm and caused it.
In criminal law categorization of culpable homicide are of two types: i. murders and ii.
manslaughter These are generally acceptable division.
• The terms "murder" and "manslaughter" are commonly used by most of the jurisdictions. •
Thus, in our discussion for the purpose of academic and theoretical easiness we also divide
culpable homicide into murder and manslaughter.

(a) Murder
For all practical and theoretical purposes, murder is the gravest, serious and heinous offence of
culpable homicides. In criminal laws, some jurisdictions have given different terms as culpable
homicide including intentional homicide in the first and second degree. The word murder has

6
been derived from the Germanic word "mortha" which means secret killing. From the early days
murder was quite distinct offence in English law from the other forms of homicide. The term
murder was for the first time defined by Lord Coke. The definition propounded by Lord Coke in
1641 remained same. Lord Coke in his definition emphasized that the unlawful killing is murder
when it is committed with "malice afore thought". That phrase, as it developed in common law,
was a technical term referring to the mental state of the accused. In England classic definition
formulated by Lord Coke remains authorities. The English courts and authorities have developed
and evolved different concepts, relating to the specification of "malice afore thought". Now
there are two alternative mental elements for murder
(i) an intention to kill and
(ii) an intention to causing bodily harm. But most of the common law jurisdictions have
included beside the above two species of mental elements required for murder a third alternative
mental element, known as
(iii) "causing death by imminently dangerous activity".
(b) Manslaughter
Manslaughter is a term which is used to denote a less serious kind of culpable homicide than
murder. Besides, the term manslaughter different technical words have been used to express this
category of culpable homicide such as  culpable homicide not amounting to murder and 
culpable homicide without malice aforethought. All these terms are used in synonymous sense.
There is no theoretical difference between them. In short, manslaughter is unlawful killing
which is not covered by the definition of murder. A wide variety of unlawful killing fall within
manslaughter . In the English writings, it is customary to divide manslaughter into two generic
types which are designated "voluntary" and "involuntary" manslaughter respectively. The
distinction is that in voluntary manslaughter the accused may have necessary mental element
required for murder but presence of defined specific mitigated circumstances reduce his charge
of murder to the less serious grade of culpable homicide. And involuntary manslaughter
includes all varieties of culpable homicide which are committed without malice-aforethought.
Most of English eminent authorities are not satisfied with the using of designation for these
categories as "voluntary" and "involuntary" ( G. Williams and Andrew Ashworth) Manslaughter
for academic distinction and conceptual understanding ma y be divided into two categories and
they are named as
i. manslaughter under mitigated circumstances and
ii. . manslaughter by recklessness, gross negligence and "unlawful" act.
(i) Manslaughter under Mitigated Circumstance: • Manslaughter under mitigated circumstance
is a killing which prima facie amount to murder, but is reduced to manslaughter by reason of the
presence of some mitigated circumstances.

7
A. Mitigation on the ground of provocation
B. Mitigation on the ground of mental incapacities or diminished responsibility
C. Mitigation on the ground of "Infanticide"
D. Mitigation on the ground of suicide pact E. Mitigation on the ground of excessive self-
defence F. Mitigation on the ground of intoxication
G. Mitigation on the ground of battered women syndrome and syndrome arising out of social
tensions
• These are such culpable homicides where the accused had caused the death of deceased with
insufficient mental element to convict him as murderer, but sufficient mental element for lesser
degree of culpable homicide verdict.
• In manslaughter under mitigated circumstances, the killings are generally related to some
policy considerations which mitigate liability for homicide whereas manslaughter by reckless,
gross negligence and unlawful acts are not based upon the policy considerations.

SUPREME COURT VERDICT REGARDING TYPRS OF HOMICIDE

Hon'ble Justice Shri Prakashman Singh Raut

Hon'ble Judge Mr. Dambar Bahadur Shahi

Judgment date: 2076.5.31

075-CR-0043

Case:- homicide

Appellant / Plaintiff: Purna Bahadur Rawat against the government of Nepal

Against

Defendant / Defendant: Grandson of Dhanveer Kanwar, son of Bal Bahadur Kanwar, District
Rolpa Sabik Nuwagaon Village, Ward no. Kaviram Kanwar who lives

Supreme Court verdict

8
In provocation, the defendant immediately awakens the urge and anger to attack the victim.
When the immediate anger cannot be contained, the action taken in the spur of the moment does
not take into account the possible consequences and does not even think about it, so the
immediate situation should be taken as the spur of the moment. Such passion or excitement must
have been immediately created in the mind of the defendant by the activities of the deceased or
by activities interdependent with him.2

Supreme Court, Joint Bench

Hon'ble Judge Shri Kedar Prasad Chalise

Honorable Judge Dr. Shri Anand Mohan Bhattarai

Judgment date: 21.3.2074

Case: Kidnapping, killing

71-CR-0545

Appellant/Respondent: Sonu Halwai residing in Ward No. 5, District Banke, Nepalganj

Municipality and currently incarcerated in Prison Office Nepalganj

Against

/ Plaintiff: Government of Nepal by Ajay Shrestha's complaint

2
Nkp Dec no 10553Part: 62 Year: 2077 Month: November Issue: 8
Date of Judgment :2076/05/31

9
Supreme court verdict

1 of the palace of the victim was kidnapped and his body taken hostage after he was murdered on
5/3/2067 by a conspiracy, crossing Nepalgunj from his home in Nepalgunj, crossing the border
of Nepal and killing him on the pretext of doing business. The offense was committed in Nepal
and No. 11 of the same palace. If he takes the action outside Nepal, he can be punished as if he
committed a crime inside Nepal.

It does not seem to be possible to say that the case will not be prosecuted in Nepal just because
the body was found here in India, when the charge sheet has been submitted as a series of single
transactions, including kidnapping, taking property, eating, maiming and murdering the
defendant. If we say that, if someone is abducted and killed in Nepal, the case can be prosecuted
but if the murder is committed abroad, we come to the conclusion of a contradictory decision,
which is not compatible with the recognized principles of law, justice and justice.3

Division Bench

Judge Shri Ratna Bahadur Bista Chhetri

Judge Shri Nayan Bahadur Khatri Chhetri

D. A. No. 40/45 41/97

Plaintiff, Appellant: Resham Lal Makju Shrestha

Against

Opponent, Defendant: Parelal Madbari also

Issue: homicide

3
Decision number 10028 Part: 60 Year: 2075 Month: October Issue: 6
Date of Judgment :2074/03/21

10
Supreme court verdict

1) Killing to death is an extraordinary thing. It is only possible if there is a major mental

condition that is not under control or if there is physical pain or injury.

It is undisputed that the deceased is Janaklal, the son of Sahu Reshalamal, who lives in
Dhulikhel. The body has also been found. Now the main thing to consider was found in
Janakalal's Las Rani pond. Did he die from duty or did he die by jumping himself? Let's take a
look at the chance investigation that took place at Rani Pokhari on the 7th day of Jeshta 13 years
after the body was found. (Both eyes slightly open, both knees bent, water coming out of the
mouth, the wrists are bruised, the fists of both hands are slightly open, there is no injury
anywhere on the body. Mohanlal Kusule, who lives in Bhotahiti, said that it seems that he killed
himself without even suspecting his duty when he showed the body. 9 people including Ram
Bahadur Ranjitkar who lives in Chikanmugal and C. Kent Bahadur who lives in Waneshwar
Vyrek and 6 people including Naran Bhakta Shrestha who lives in Pafal tol who claims that
Hamphali is dead and this is the one who escaped. Parelal, a resident of Indra Chowk, said that
Hamphali, who came here because of the fear of being arrested because he could not cut the cut,
said that the man was a wealthy gambler and it is understood that he died of suffocation in the
autopsy report of 3 doctors. But since it is written that the cause of breathlessness cannot be said,
according to Parelal's statement, it seems that Janaklal Rani Hamfali died in the pool because of
the fear that Parelal could not be killed. But murder is not a simple matter. There should be great
unbearable mental or physical pain or injury. This is possible only when the mental state is not
properly controlled. It is conceivable that Janaklal had to die because of his failure to cut
Parelal.4

Supreme Court, Joint Bench

Hon'ble Judge Mr. Deepakraj Joshi

Hon'ble Justice Mr. Govinda Kumar Upadhyay

4
C: 3 Year: 2017 Month: Kartik Issue: 4
Judgment Date :2017/09/15 3959
Decision no. 100 N.K.P. 2017

11
 Judgment date: 2072.5.3.5

069-CR-0546

Issue: HOMICIDE

Appellant/plaintiff: Government of Nepal by complaint of Jokhan Pasi

Against

Defendant/Defendant: Ruppandehi District Raipur G.V.S. Ward no. 5 Ramavati Passi

SUPRENE COURT VERDICT

In relation to the incident, the strict liability between the deceased and the defendant, between
the employer and the worker, or between the master or the servant, can be denied. But even if it
is rejected like that, . Dinesh Yadav's offense does not seem to be limited to this. Vinesh, who
was unconscious, was left stranded in the mill, put him in a bag in the middle of the night and
threw him into a pit with water. This is not just an omission but a culpable homicide of a more
serious nature. n the first stage, the defendant does not seem to have been able to clarify that
Kaitadi himself died due to the fact that his hand was cut. Unless this matter is clarified by the
defendant, there is no possibility that the presented incident will fall within the scope of the Civil
Act, No. 5 and 6 related to death. But it is not possible to submit the proof that he took it from
somewhere, but it seems that the opposite is happening. However, there is no possibility of death
immediately or within 3.4 hours from cutting the hand alone. There is no reason to disagree with
the above-mentioned opinion of scholars Smith and Hogan that if a person who did not die due
to the act of the defendant dies due to the act of a third party, then the third party will be guilty of
the murder.5

Supreme Court, Joint Bench

Hon'ble Judge Shri Ram Kumar Prasad Shah

5
DECISION NO 9471 Part: 57 Year: 2072 Month: Paus Number: 9
Date of Judgment :2072/05/03

12
 Hon'ble Justice Shri Gauri Dhakal

Year 2062 S.Fau.PU.No.3353

Judgment date: 2067.4.14.6

Case:- HOMOCIDE

Appellant Defendant: Charles Gurmukh Sobraj, son of Bhawani Sobraj, 20 Avenue “Ivry” 75013
Paris France Ghar Bhai Presently detained at Prison Branch, Jagannath Deval, Kathmandu

Against

Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF Nepal

SUPREME COURT VERDICT

Since the killing of the VICTIM was due to the ACT of a person, the criminal who commits a
criminal act should be punished according to the prevailing law, so it is the duty of the court to
punish the person found guilty even on the basis of indirect evidence.

The judge should also ensure that justice is done to the victims of crimes and criminals. The
basic goal of the justice system is to provide balanced justice to both the accused and the victims
of crime. A decision made targeting only one person cannot assume the shape of justice.

Looking at the method adopted in committing the crime and the nature of the crime, it seems that
the criminal was fully aware, careful and planned and organized his plan of action. In such a
situation, the accused should be punished on the basis of indirect evidence and especially
circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution.

In relation to any work, event or crime, if the chain of facts from the various situations and
activities of the accused's work or behavior is linked together in a series, a natural conclusion
that a criminal act has been committed, and if it is established that the accused has committed a
crime from those actions and behavior, such chain of facts is defined as circumstantial

13
evidence. . For this, every link of fact should be interrelated and interdependent and if any link of
fact is absent, then the evidence is considered broken.6

Supreme Court, Joint Bench

Hon'ble Judge Shri Kedar Prasad Chalise

Honorable Judge Dr. Shri Anand Mohan Bhattarai

Judgment date: 21.3.2074

Case: Kidnapping, MURDER

071-CR-0545

Appellant/Respondent: Sonu Halwai residing in Ward No. 5, District Banke, Nepalganj

Municipality and currently incarcerated in Prison Office Nepalganj

Against

/ Plaintiff: Government of Nepal by Ajay Shrestha's complaint.4

Supreme court verdict

1 of the palace of the deceased was kidnapped and his body taken hostage after he was murdered
on 5/3/2067 by a conspiracy, crossing Nepalgunj from his home in Nepalgunj, crossing the
border of Nepal and killing him on the pretext of doing business. The offense was committed in

6
Part: 52 Year: 2067 Month: Bhadra Marks: 5
Judgment Date :2067/04/14

Decision No: 8378 N.K.P. 2067 issue 5

14
Nepal and No. 11 of the same palace. If he takes the action outside Nepal, he can be punished as
if he committed a crime inside Nepal.

It does not seem to be possible to say that the case will not be prosecuted in Nepal just because
the body was found here in India, when the charge sheet has been submitted as a series of single
transactions, including kidnapping, taking property, eating, maiming and murdering the
defendant. If we say that, if someone is abducted and killed in Nepal, the case can be prosecuted,
but if the murder is committed abroad, we come to the conclusion of a contradictory decision,
which is not compatible with the recognized principles of law, justice and justice.7

7
Decision no 10028 Part: 60 Year: 2075 Month: October Issue: 6
Date of Judgment :2074/03/21

15