NEGLIGENCE AND

RECKLESSNESS
PREPARED BY ARJU KARKI
 Recklessness
• Taking of unreasonable risk
• Unjustified risk taking
• Does an act with an expectation he would avoid the undesirable
consequences.
• Nevertheless containing an element of reasonableness.
• third-degree criminal intent.
• It is reckless to take an unreasonable or unjustifiable risk in the event that a
person with a common sense sees the possibility that a criminal act may
result from an action he has taken.
• Recklessness is considered as the less liability of criminal intent.
• Recklessness in criminal law is a state of mind in which the perpetrator has a
foreknowledge of the outcome but is not convinced that the outcome will be
the same, does not want such an outcome, and decides to act at undue risk.
• In this, the perpetrator sees the result of the work he is about to do, but the
result is not certain. So he takes an obvious risk and his actions commit the
crime. Criminal liability will not be created if the risk taken by the perpetrator
can be justified. The basis for justifying risk is social necessity and utility.
• Reckless driving with high speed , without license, drinking
alcohal ,not providing food and water in false imprisonment and
cause death.
• But he does not hit anybody then he is not charged in attempted
murder
• Recklessness is not relevant in attempted murder.
• Heart / brain operation is a risky operations and in the course of
operation if patient dies a doctor is not charged with recklessness
homicide because it is a reasonable one.
• Recklessness is considered a third-degree criminal intent.
• It is reckless to take an unreasonable or unjustifiable risk in the event that a
person with a common sense sees the possibility that a criminal act may result
from an action he has taken.
• Recklessness is considered as the less liability of criminal intent.
• Recklessness in criminal law is a state of mind in which the perpetrator has a
foreknowledge of the outcome but is not convinced that the outcome will be the
same, does not want such an outcome, and decides to act at undue risk.
• In this, the perpetrator sees the result of the work he is about to do, but the result
is not certain. So he takes an obvious risk and his actions commit the crime.
Criminal liability will not be created if the risk taken by the perpetrator can be
justified. The basis for justifying risk is social necessity and utility
• Three things are important as its element:
• First, the perpetrator has foreknowledge of the outcome.
• Second, the perpetrator does not want results.
• Third, in the end, the perpetrator takes undue risk.
• Section 181 of the National Penal Code provides for the following:
• Prohibition of causing death by recklessness: (1) No person shall cause
the death of any one by doing a reckless act.
• (2) A person who commits the offence referred to in sub- section (1)
shall, except in the cases referred to in Sections 177, 178 and 179, be
liable to a sentence of imprisonment for a term of three to ten years and
a fine of thirty thousand to one hundred thousand rupees.
• This law clearly stipulates that if someone dies as a result of negligence,
he or she will have to bear the criminal liability. This code was not a
separate provision in the homicide chapter in Muluki Ain 2020, but was
included in the Accidental homicide chapter.
• Punishment in Homicide by Recklessness:
• Subsection (2) of Section 161 (2) of the Vehicle and Transportation
Management Act, 2049 provides a sentence of imprisonment for a
term not exceeding three years to ten years and a fine not exceeding
thirty thousand rupees.
Sub-section (4) has made an arrangement to impose an additional
fine of Rs. 2,000 if the driver's license is not obtained.
• Sub-section (2) of Section 181 of the Criminal Code provides for
"imprisonment for three to ten years and a fine of Rs. 30,000 to Rs.
100,000 for any act of negligence."
NEGLIGENCE

• Careless state of mind

• Breach of duty
• Held guilty on the ground his act was unreasonable and below the
approved standard of the society.
• Directly related to duty to take care and standard of care in all
circumstances.
• Without legal duty no one is guilty of negligence.
• without prior knowledge of the will and consequences of the act
• No precaution or standard
• Carelessness
• No foreknowledge of outcome
• If person is not found guilty of negligence then case may be taken to
inevitable accident.
• Even if the criminal act is Homicide, "Homicide with negligence" refers
to murder without prior knowledge of the will and consequences of
the act. In homicide with negligence, the perpetrator does not have
the foreknowledge that his actions could lead to the death of anyone,
nor does he desire the consequences of death.
• If the perpetrator has to take proper precautions in the event of an
incident, then not taking such precautions is considered sufficient for
negligent homicide. The level of caution is such that if a person with
common sense was involved in the incident, caution would be
exercised and no one was killed, the same level would have to be
observed.
• In the general sense, negligence means not paying proper attention, neglecting or ignoring.
• Negligence is the mental state of the perpetrator, in which the perpetrator is aware of the possible
consequences of his conduct or action, but does so without the desire or desire for the result.

• In negligence there is the violation of criminal law due to lack of proper or expected precaution is a
crime.
• To explain negligence, rational person is envisioned. If any person had done any act in a situation and
that act violates the criminal law, it is seen that whether a rational person (wise man) acted in same
manner or not.
• In this, the perpetrator neither desires the result of such work nor sees the possibility of such result
previously. But his actions are different from what he expected and death occur.
• It is believed that the perpetrator should be held accountable if he acts recklessly and if the result
prohibits criminal law. Negligence is a condition of not taking precaution, which is used by anyone
who is conscious.
• Criminal jurists have said that negligent is a matter of carelessness,
lack of awareness, and inability to behave like a prudent person. It is
divided into simple negligence and gross negligence. Simple
negligence is considered less serious and gross negligence is
considered more serious.
• Section 182 of the National Penal Code provides the following provisions to bring
the perpetrators to justice in the event of death due to negligence:
• Prohibition of causing death by negligence: (1) Except in the case referred to in
Section 179, no person shall cause the death of any one by doing a negligent act.
• (2) A person who commits the offence referred to in sub- section (1) shall be liable
to a sentence of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years and a fine not
exceeding thirty thousand rupees.
• (3) Except in the case referred to in sub-section (1), if any act done by a person
under such circumstances that such act is less likely to cause death causes the
death of any one accidently, that person shall be liable to a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of six months to two years or a fine not exceeding
twenty thousand rupees or both the sentences.
• Section 161 Sub-section (3) of the Vehicle and Transportation Management Act,
2049
• If a person while driving a motor vehicle in a circumstance where it does not
appear likely to result in the death of any one meets with an accident resulting in
the death of a person who is inside the motor vehicle or in any place outside the
motor vehicle, the person driving the motor vehicle shall be punished with
imprisonment for term not exceeding One year or a fine not exceeding Two
Thousand Rupees or with both punishments.
• Although there is no word for negligence in this section, it is stated that ....... in a
circumstance where it does not appear likely to result in the death of any one
meets with an accident resulting in the death of a person who is inside the motor
vehicle or in any place outside the motor vehicle....... which means the perpetrator
act negligence.
• Although recklessness and negligence may seem like the same mental state in general but there are
fundamental differences. Except not desired for consequences there may differences between these
two mental state.
• For example, in recklessness , the perpetrator needs foreknowledge of the outcome of the action,
but in negligence, there is no foreknowledge of the outcome.
• In recklessness despite of being aware of the consequences, one is willing to take undue risks, but in
negligence, the consequences are not taken into account, and the results come out suddenly occur.
• In recklessness the level of behavior a perpetrator is not compared with a behavior of a rational
person but in negligence the level of behavior of a perpetrator is compared with the level of
behavior of a rational person.
• Similarly, in case of recklessness, the prosecutor should prove without any doubt that the act of the
perpetrator is recklessness, while in negligence, it is enough to prove only the situation and the
result. Negligence is considered to have less mental defect than recklessness. Therefore, negligence
is less punishable than recklessness.