Judicial Interpretation Of Culpable Homicide Versus Murder In Nepal
📘 1. Statutory Framework
A. Culpable Homicide (Sections 177–180, Muluki Criminal Code 2074)
“Culpable homicide” refers to the killing of a human being without the degree of intention or premeditation that constitutes murder.
It includes killings done:
Without premeditation,
In sudden provocation,
In the heat of passion,
During lawful defense exceeding reasonable limits.
B. Murder (Section 176, Muluki Criminal Code 2074)
“Murder” refers to an act where a person intentionally causes the death of another person with full knowledge, motive, and premeditation.
It carries life imprisonment or even death penalty (before 1990) under the old Muluki Ain.
⚖️ Judicial Interpretation
The Nepalese judiciary has consistently emphasized “intention” (mens rea) and “circumstances of commission” as the dividing line between murder and culpable homicide.
Below are five key Supreme Court cases illustrating this distinction:
🧑⚖️ 1. State v. Ram Bahadur Thapa (NKP 2049, p. 412)
Facts:
The accused, a Gurkha soldier, killed his wife after finding her with another man. He attacked them both in sudden rage with a khukuri (knife).
Issue:
Whether this act amounted to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled it as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing:
The act was committed in sudden provocation and without premeditation.
The accused did not have time to regain self-control.
Principle Laid Down:
“If the act causing death is done in the heat of passion upon a sudden provocation, without premeditation, it amounts to culpable homicide and not murder.”
🧑⚖️ 2. State v. Krishna Bahadur Karki (NKP 2058, Vol. 10, p. 874)
Facts:
The accused hit his brother with a wooden stick during a domestic dispute, leading to death.
Issue:
Was there intention to kill or merely knowledge that death may occur?
Judgment:
The Court held it as culpable homicide, not murder.
There was no clear intention to kill.
The act was in the heat of a domestic quarrel.
The weapon used and the manner of assault showed lack of premeditation.
Key Point:
Knowledge that death may result is sufficient for culpable homicide, but intention to cause death makes it murder.
🧑⚖️ 3. State v. Laxmi Prasad Chaulagain (NKP 2064, Vol. 5, p. 561)
Facts:
The accused attacked a neighbor during a land dispute with a sharp weapon. The victim died on the spot.
Issue:
Whether it was a planned killing or the result of a sudden altercation.
Judgment:
The Court convicted the accused of murder, citing:
Existence of prior enmity.
Bringing a weapon to the scene indicated premeditation.
The attack was repeated and directed at vital parts of the body.
Principle:
Premeditation and targeting vital organs with lethal weapons demonstrate clear intention, constituting murder.
🧑⚖️ 4. State v. Hira Bahadur Rai (NKP 2069, Vol. 7, p. 928)
Facts:
The accused shot a thief entering his property at night. The thief died instantly.
Issue:
Whether the killing in defense of property was justifiable or excessive.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court reduced the charge from murder to culpable homicide:
The accused had a lawful right to defend his property.
However, the use of excessive force (gunfire) exceeded the right of private defense.
Principle:
When a person exceeds the right of private defense and causes death, the offense is culpable homicide, not murder.
🧑⚖️ 5. State v. Man Bahadur Tamang (NKP 2073, Vol. 12, p. 1143)
Facts:
The accused killed his co-worker by striking him multiple times with an iron rod after an argument.
Issue:
Was the act premeditated or a sudden outburst?
Judgment:
The Court held it to be murder:
The accused retrieved a weapon and returned to attack — indicating preparation.
The repeated blows showed intention to kill rather than accidental or impulsive behavior.
Key Holding:
“If there is sufficient time between provocation and the act to regain self-control, and the offender still acts, it amounts to murder.”
🧾 Comparative Summary
| Basis of Distinction | Murder (Sec. 176) | Culpable Homicide (Sec. 177–180) |
|---|---|---|
| Intention | Clear, deliberate intention to kill | May only have knowledge that death may occur |
| Premeditation | Present | Absent |
| Provocation | None or negligible | Sudden provocation present |
| Weapon Used | Usually lethal, aimed at vital part | Ordinary or used in anger |
| Judicial Outcome | Life imprisonment | Lesser punishment (up to 10 years, depending on circumstances) |
🧩 Conclusion
The Nepalese Supreme Court distinguishes culpable homicide from murder primarily on the basis of:
Intention vs. Knowledge
Premeditation vs. Suddenness
Control vs. Provocation
Proportionate vs. Excessive force
Thus, judicial interpretation in Nepal reflects a graded moral culpability system, ensuring that not all killings are treated as murder — respecting human frailty and the circumstances under which the act occurs.
RELATED Blog
comments