Research On Traffic Offences And Criminal Liability In Nepal
Traffic Offences and Criminal Liability in Nepal: Detailed Cases
Legal Framework
The primary legislation governing traffic offences in Nepal is the Motor Vehicles and Transport Management Act, 2049 B.S. (1993). Relevant sections for criminal liability include:
Section 161 – Death caused by motor vehicle:
(1) – Death caused intentionally: Life imprisonment + property confiscation.
(2) – Death caused knowingly or recklessly: Imprisonment 2–10 years.
(3) – Death caused by accident without risk: Imprisonment up to 1 year or fine.
Section 163 – Liability of driver/owner to pay compensation, medical, funeral expenses.
Other sections – Driving without license, driving under influence, over-speeding, or traffic violations may enhance liability.
Principle: Criminal liability in traffic offences is applied based on intention, recklessness, or negligence, with grossly negligent or reckless driving attracting harsher punishment.
Case 1: Deepak Tamang v. State of Nuwakot
Facts:
A motorcyclist, Deepak Tamang, hit a pedestrian in Bidur, Nuwakot district.
The driver did not hold a license.
Court Findings:
The District Court initially convicted under Section 161(3) (death by accident without risk) and sentenced him to 5 months imprisonment.
The Supreme Court upheld that:
Driving without a license does not automatically equate to criminal negligence.
No evidence of reckless driving, intoxication, or over-speeding.
Significance:
Establishes that absence of license alone does not attract higher criminal liability.
Section 161(3) is for accidental deaths without gross negligence.
Case 2: Rabin Karki v. State of Morang
Facts:
A driver under the influence of alcohol hit pedestrians at high speed. One pedestrian died, another was injured.
Driver lacked a valid license.
Court Findings:
Convicted under Section 161(2) (death caused knowingly/recklessly) due to:
Intoxication
High speed
Violation of traffic rules
Sentence:
3 years imprisonment + fine.
Significance:
Demonstrates how recklessness or knowledge of risk elevates liability from Section 161(3) to 161(2).
Combines evidence of intoxication and speed to establish criminal mens rea.
Case 3: Anil Kumar v. State
Facts:
A passenger bus ran over a cyclist at night in Kathmandu. The driver argued the cyclist suddenly appeared on the road.
Court Findings:
Court considered visibility, road conditions, and speed.
Driver found partially negligent but not reckless.
Convicted under Section 161(3), minor imprisonment + fine.
Significance:
Courts distinguish ordinary negligence vs. recklessness.
Mitigating factors like sudden obstacles may reduce criminal liability.
Case 4: Smt. Sona Devi v. Anil Kumar & Others
Facts:
A car accident caused the death of a pedestrian. Family sought compensation under Section 163.
Court Findings:
Owner and driver were jointly liable to pay:
Funeral expenses
Medical expenses
Fixed compensation
Significance:
Shows that traffic accidents attract civil/statutory compensation regardless of criminal conviction.
Owners/managers can be held liable even if not driving.
Case 5: Bikash Shrestha v. State
Facts:
Motorcycle rider overspeeding, collided with another vehicle, causing death.
Court Findings:
Convicted under Section 161(2): reckless driving.
Sentence: 4 years imprisonment + fine.
Reasoning:
Overspeeding in a populated area shows reckless disregard for human life.
Court considered prior warnings about speed violation.
Significance:
Overspeeding is a common factor in establishing reckless driving.
Case 6: Ram Bahadur v. State
Facts:
Driver lost control due to mechanical failure, hit a pedestrian.
Court Findings:
Convicted under Section 161(3) (death by accident without risk).
Imprisonment: 6 months, fine.
Reasoning:
Accident occurred without driver’s recklessness; mechanical failure was unforeseen.
Significance:
Reaffirms that unforeseeable accidents fall under the lower liability category.
Case 7: Suman Karki v. State
Facts:
A taxi driver ignored traffic signals and killed a pedestrian.
Court Findings:
Convicted under Section 161(2).
Court emphasized: Ignoring signals = knowledgeable violation leading to foreseeable risk of death.
Sentence: 5 years imprisonment + fine.
Significance:
Ignoring traffic signals constitutes reckless conduct, attracting serious criminal liability.
Summary Table: Key Principles from Cases
| Case | Facts | Section Invoked | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deepak Tamang | Motorcyclist, no license, pedestrian died | 161(3) | Absence of license alone ≠ criminal negligence |
| Rabin Karki | Drunk driving, high speed, pedestrian died | 161(2) | Reckless driving + intoxication = 2–10 yrs |
| Anil Kumar | Bus hit cyclist suddenly | 161(3) | Mitigating factors reduce liability |
| Sona Devi | Pedestrian death, compensation claimed | 163 | Owner liable for statutory compensation |
| Bikash Shrestha | Motorcycle overspeeding, collision | 161(2) | Overspeeding in populated area = reckless |
| Ram Bahadur | Accident due to mechanical failure | 161(3) | Unforeseeable accident = minor liability |
| Suman Karki | Taxi ignored signals, pedestrian died | 161(2) | Violation of traffic signals = reckless driving |
Key Takeaways
Nepalese law distinguishes intentional, reckless, and accidental deaths.
Section 161(2): Reckless/knowing driving → heavier punishment (2–10 yrs).
Section 161(3): Accidents without risk → minor punishment (≤1 yr).
Absence of license alone is not enough for heavier criminal liability.
Civil/statutory compensation (Section 163) can be claimed even if criminal liability is minimal.
Factors affecting liability: intoxication, overspeeding, ignoring signals, vehicle type, road conditions.
RELATED Blog
comments