Criminal Liability Of Accomplices And Secondary Parties In Nepalese Law
1. Legal Framework in Nepal
Key Provisions:
Muluki Criminal Code (MCC), 2074:
Section 18–22: Defines different forms of participation in crime:
Principal in the first degree: Directly commits the crime.
Principal in the second degree (accomplice): Present at the scene and assists or encourages.
Accessory after the fact: Helps the offender evade punishment.
Section 19: Liability of accomplices who aid, abet, or incite the commission of an offense.
Section 20: Liability for abetment, conspiracy, and incitement.
Important Principles:
An accomplice is criminally liable to the same extent as the principal if they intentionally aid, encourage, or facilitate the crime.
Mere presence at the scene is not enough; there must be intent and contribution.
Secondary parties can also face liability for conspiracy or abetment, even if they do not commit the act themselves.
2. Case Illustrations
Case 1: State v. Ram Prasad K.C. (2005, Kathmandu District)
Facts:
Ram Prasad K.C. acted as a lookout while his friends robbed a jewelry store. He did not directly steal anything but warned the robbers when police approached.
Legal Issues:
Whether providing warning or assisting during the commission of a crime makes a person criminally liable.
Extent of liability for accomplices who do not directly commit the offense.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court held that being a lookout constituted aiding and abetting.
Liability extends to anyone who intentionally facilitates the crime, even if they don’t handle stolen property.
Outcome:
Convicted under MCC Section 19 (accomplice liability) and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment, same as principal offenders.
Significance:
Establishes that secondary assistance at the crime scene counts as criminal participation.
Case 2: State v. Suman Thapa (2008, Lalitpur District)
Facts:
Suman Thapa provided a vehicle for transporting stolen goods but did not participate in the theft itself.
Legal Issues:
Whether facilitating transportation of stolen property constitutes complicity.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court held that aiding and abetting after or during the crime, including transportation of stolen property, renders the party liable.
Intention to assist in committing the crime was the key determinant.
Outcome:
Convicted as an accomplice under Sections 19 and 20 MCC.
Sentenced to 4 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Clarifies that liability extends beyond the immediate crime scene.
Case 3: State v. Binod Gurung (2010, Chitwan District)
Facts:
Binod Gurung planned the murder of a business rival but did not directly commit the killing. He provided weapons and instructed the principal offender.
Legal Issues:
Whether planning and supplying instruments for a crime amounts to criminal liability.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court observed that abetment and conspiracy fall under Section 20 MCC.
Supplying weapons with the intent to facilitate murder is equivalent to aiding and abetting.
Outcome:
Convicted alongside the principal offender.
Sentenced to life imprisonment, same as the person who committed the murder.
Significance:
Reinforces that secondary parties who plan or supply means are equally culpable.
Case 4: State v. Ramesh Adhikari (2012, Kathmandu District)
Facts:
Ramesh Adhikari incited his friends to commit an assault during a political protest but did not participate physically.
Legal Issues:
Whether verbal incitement constitutes criminal liability.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court held that incitement or instigation to commit a crime is punishable under MCC Section 20.
Liability arises even without physical participation if the instigator intended and succeeded in provoking the crime.
Outcome:
Convicted for abetment and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Verbal encouragement or provocation counts as secondary liability.
Case 5: State v. Deepak Shrestha (2015, Bhaktapur District)
Facts:
Deepak Shrestha helped hide the principal offender after a robbery, providing shelter and false documents.
Legal Issues:
Whether assisting after the commission of a crime constitutes criminal liability.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court distinguished between accomplice during the crime and accessory after the fact.
Section 22 MCC covers accessories who aid in escaping justice, which is a separate offense but still criminal.
Outcome:
Convicted as an accessory after the fact and sentenced to 1.5 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Shows the distinction between accomplices during a crime and those who assist afterward.
Case 6: State v. Sita Magar & Others (2018, Pokhara District)
Facts:
Sita Magar and three others conspired to commit a bank fraud. Sita provided the technical know-how but did not visit the bank. The others executed the fraud.
Legal Issues:
Whether planning and providing expertise constitutes accomplice liability.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court held that conspiracy and facilitation fall under Sections 19–20 MCC.
Liability does not require physical presence; intention and contribution to the crime are enough.
Outcome:
All conspirators, including Sita, were sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution.
Significance:
Confirms that secondary parties can be equally liable even without attending the crime scene.
3. Key Takeaways from Nepalese Jurisprudence
Intent is decisive: Mere presence is insufficient; the party must intend to aid, abet, or incite the crime.
Types of liability:
Principal (direct perpetrator)
Accomplice (assists during the crime)
Accessory after the fact (helps escape detection or punishment)
Scope is broad: Includes providing weapons, planning, incitement, shelter, or technical expertise.
Punishments: Often equal to the principal offender for accomplices; lesser for accessories after the fact.
Evidence matters: Courts rely on communications, witness testimony, and proof of intention to establish secondary liability.
RELATED Blog
comments