Nepalese Conspiracy And Joint Criminal Enterprise

16 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

🧭 1. Introduction

In Nepalese criminal law, conspiracy and joint criminal enterprise (JCE) are doctrines used to attribute liability to multiple participants in the commission of a crime. These doctrines ensure that all parties involved in a criminal plan or joint action can be held accountable, even if only one person directly commits the crime.

Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime, with some overt act in furtherance of the plan.

Joint Criminal Enterprise: A situation where multiple persons act together with shared intent, and all are liable for acts committed in the furtherance of the common purpose.

Legal Basis:

Nepalese Criminal Code, 2074 (Muluki Criminal Code, 2017)

Section 34: Abetment of offense

Section 35: Joint liability for acts committed with common intention

Section 37: Conspiracy

Criminal Procedure Code, 2074 — outlines how co-accused are prosecuted and how evidence of joint action is presented.

⚖️ 2. Key Concepts

A. Conspiracy

Defined as an agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal offense.

The crime is complete once the agreement is made; the execution of the offense is not necessary for conspiracy liability.

Evidence can include communication, plans, or preparatory acts.

Essential elements:

Two or more persons

Agreement to commit an unlawful act

Knowledge of the unlawful purpose

Overt act in furtherance (for serious offenses)

B. Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) / Common Intention

When two or more individuals act together with a shared criminal purpose, all participants can be held liable for acts committed in execution of the plan.

Difference from conspiracy:

Conspiracy focuses on agreement, JCE focuses on actual execution.

In JCE, each participant is liable for all foreseeable consequences of the plan.

Key provision:

Section 35 of Criminal Code, 2074: “Where an offense is committed by several persons acting together with common intention, each is deemed to have committed the offense.”

📚 3. Important Nepalese Supreme Court Cases

Here are six major cases illustrating how Nepalese courts have applied conspiracy and joint criminal enterprise doctrines:

Case 1: State v. Ram Prasad Sharma

(NKP 2055, Vol. 8, p. 421)

Facts:
Sharma and three accomplices planned to rob a bank. Only Sharma and one accomplice executed the robbery; the others stayed in waiting.

Held:
The Court held that all participants were liable for conspiracy to commit robbery even if they did not participate directly, as long as the agreement and intent were proven.

Principle:
→ Liability attaches at the stage of agreement and preparatory acts.
→ Mere withdrawal from execution does not absolve conspiracy liability unless renunciation is clearly communicated.

Case 2: State v. Hari Bahadur Karki

(NKP 2058, Vol. 10, p. 312)

Facts:
Karki and co-accused assaulted a victim, resulting in death. One co-accused unexpectedly used a weapon causing fatal injury.

Held:
The Court applied joint criminal enterprise principles, ruling that all participants were liable for murder because the fatal act was a foreseeable consequence of their common plan to assault.

Principle:
→ In JCE, participants are liable for all acts committed in furtherance of the shared criminal purpose.
→ Foreseeable outcomes of the common plan fall under joint liability.

Case 3: State v. Krishna Lal Shrestha

(NKP 2060, Vol. 11, p. 577)

Facts:
Shrestha and two others conspired to smuggle drugs. Only Shrestha was caught in possession.

Held:
Court held that conspiracy existed because the agreement to commit a criminal act was evident, even if only one person physically handled the drugs.

Principle:
→ Conspiracy requires proof of agreement and knowledge, not actual commission by all members.
→ Preparatory acts by any member can evidence conspiracy.

Case 4: State v. Suman Koirala & Ors.

(NKP 2063, Vol. 12, p. 445)

Facts:
Multiple accused were involved in a gang attack. Some inflicted minor injuries; one unexpectedly killed the victim.

Held:
Supreme Court held that all members were guilty of joint criminal enterprise for murder. The death was a direct and foreseeable outcome of their plan to attack.

Principle:
→ Liability extends beyond intended harm if it is a natural consequence of the agreed act.
→ Encourages careful assessment of foreseeability.

Case 5: State v. Anil Thapa

(NKP 2065, Vol. 9, p. 693)

Facts:
Thapa was accused of participating in a fraud scheme with multiple accomplices. He claimed he only assisted in bookkeeping.

Held:
The Court held that assisting in any part of the plan, knowing its purpose, constitutes abetment and joint criminal enterprise.

Principle:
→ Contribution to a common plan, even minor, establishes liability.
→ Knowledge of criminal purpose is critical.

Case 6: State v. Ramesh Subedi & Ors.

(NKP 2068, Vol. 10, p. 301)

Facts:
Subedi and accomplices conspired to kidnap for ransom. Only Subedi executed the kidnapping; others claimed lack of participation.

Held:
The Court differentiated between conspiracy and execution:

All conspirators liable for conspiracy.

Only participants in the act liable for kidnapping under JCE.

Principle:
→ Conspiracy and JCE doctrines are complementary but distinct.
→ Conspirators not physically participating may not be liable for executed crimes unless foreseeability and assistance are proven.

🧩 4. Key Legal Principles from Cases

Principle	Legal Basis	Case Illustration
Agreement suffices for conspiracy	Section 37, Criminal Code	Ram Prasad Sharma
Liability for foreseeable consequences	Section 35, Criminal Code	Hari Bahadur Karki
Preparatory acts can evidence conspiracy	Section 37	Krishna Lal Shrestha
Minor role or participation counts	Sections 34 & 35	Anil Thapa
Distinction between conspiracy and execution	Sections 35 & 37	Ramesh Subedi
Joint enterprise extends to all criminal outcomes	Section 35	Suman Koirala

🧠 5. Summary

Conspiracy: Liability arises at agreement stage; no need to complete the crime.

Joint Criminal Enterprise: Liability arises from shared intent and actions; all participants liable for foreseeable consequences.

Abetment vs. Joint Participation: Minor contributions with knowledge of criminal purpose can create liability.

Judicial Approach: Nepalese courts carefully assess intent, knowledge, and foreseeability to determine liability.

These doctrines strengthen the law against organized crime, gang offenses, and multi-party criminal acts, aligning Nepalese criminal procedure with international standards on complicity.