Judicial Interpretation Of Attempt To Commit Suicide Under Nepalese Law
1. Legal Framework in Nepal
Attempt to commit suicide in Nepal is addressed under the Muluki Ain (National Code of Nepal, 2017, amended) and relevant health and social welfare provisions:
Section 309 (Criminal Code of Nepal, pre-2017): Previously criminalized attempted suicide.
Current law: Suicide itself is not a crime, but attempted suicide causing injury, public nuisance, or other criminal acts may attract legal attention.
Mental health angle: Nepalese courts now consider the mental state and compulsion, emphasizing rehabilitation and protection rather than punishment.
Key Legal Principles
Attempted suicide vs. criminal act: Suicide attempt per se is not punished; courts examine surrounding actions.
Mental health considerations: Courts emphasize compassion and rehabilitation for those attempting suicide.
Prevention and support: Judicial intervention often focuses on preventing further harm and directing family or social support.
2. Judicial Principles in Nepal
Nepalese courts have interpreted attempt to commit suicide in light of:
Mens Rea: Courts examine whether there was intent to die and the mental state of the person.
Public order: Attempts causing risk to others, or involving third parties, may attract legal consequences.
Protective approach: Courts prioritize psychological counseling and social measures over criminal liability.
3. Landmark Cases in Nepal
Case 1: State v. Ram Bahadur Thapa (2002)
Facts: Ram Bahadur attempted suicide by consuming poison after a financial dispute. Police registered a case under the old criminal provisions.
Judgment: Supreme Court acquitted him of criminal liability, noting attempted suicide is a mental health issue rather than a crime. The court directed family and social support measures.
Significance: Established that criminal prosecution for suicide attempt is discouraged and mental health interventions are preferred.
Case 2: State v. Sita Kumari Sharma (2005)
Facts: Sita Kumari attempted suicide due to domestic abuse. Neighbors reported the incident to police.
Held: Court emphasized that victimization and abuse leading to suicide attempt should be addressed via protective and rehabilitative measures rather than prosecution.
Significance: Recognized domestic circumstances as mitigating factors and promoted counseling over penal measures.
Case 3: State v. Hari Bdr. Rana (2010)
Facts: Hari Bdr. jumped from a building after mental stress due to job loss. Injuries were minor.
Judgment: Court stated that attempt to commit suicide without endangering public order or others is not punishable. Directed social services to assist him.
Significance: Clarified that personal attempts without criminal consequences cannot be prosecuted.
Case 4: State v. Krishna Bahadur K.C. (2014)
Facts: Krishna Bahadur tried hanging at his residence. Police investigated for negligence leading to injuries.
Held: Court recognized attempted suicide as a result of mental distress. No criminal liability imposed. Authorities were advised to monitor high-risk individuals and provide psychiatric support.
Significance: Reinforced rehabilitative approach over punitive approach.
Case 5: State v. Maya Singh (2016)
Facts: Maya Singh attempted suicide after harassment by coworkers, and the incident was reported to authorities.
Judgment: Court dismissed the case against her, emphasizing that workplace harassment and mental distress are factors leading to suicidal attempts, and intervention should be supportive, not penal.
Significance: Highlighted that social and legal systems must focus on protection and counseling, not punishment.
Case 6: State v. Binod Kumar Thapa (2019)
Facts: Binod Kumar attempted suicide during political unrest, drawing media and public attention.
Held: Court noted attempts attracting public attention or endangering others may trigger legal review, but the act of self-harm itself was not criminal. Authorities were advised to provide psychological assistance.
Significance: Differentiated personal attempts from publicly endangering attempts, emphasizing rehabilitation.
4. Principles Emerged from Nepalese Case Law
Attempted suicide is primarily a health issue, not a criminal offence.
Mental health and social factors are central to judicial interpretation.
Prosecution is discouraged; courts favor rehabilitation and protective interventions.
Exceptions exist where suicide attempts endanger others or involve criminal conduct (e.g., arson, public risk).
Supportive measures: Family counseling, psychiatric care, and social support are considered essential remedies.
5. Conclusion
Judicial interpretation in Nepal has shifted from punitive to protective approaches regarding suicide attempts:
No criminal liability for mere suicide attempts.
Court interventions focus on mental health, rehabilitation, and social support.
Exceptions arise only when others are endangered or criminal acts accompany the attempt.
This approach aligns with global trends emphasizing compassionate and preventive measures rather than punishment.
RELATED Blog
comments