Case Law Distinguishing Attempt From Preparation In Nepalese Courts
1. Diwakar Pandit Case (NKP 2060, DN 7167)
Facts:
The accused, Diwakar Pandit, allegedly attacked his victim with a knife in a law chamber. The victim’s friend intervened, and the accused fled. Later, the accused was arrested with the knife.
Legal Issue:
Whether his act constituted attempted murder or merely preparation.
Court Reasoning:
The court found that while the accused had the intent, his actions did not reach the stage of attempt because the intervention by the victim’s friend prevented him from executing the crime. The prosecution failed to prove that the accused’s actions were a direct movement toward commission of murder rather than mere preparation.
Outcome:
Conviction for attempt was overturned; the act was deemed preparation.
Significance:
Even violent acts may remain preparation if the prosecution cannot establish a direct movement toward completing the crime.
2. Roshan Shrestha vs. Government of Nepal (2076-CR-0777)
Facts:
The accused and accomplices planned to murder someone. They completed arrangements and took substantial steps toward the crime, but the offence failed due to external circumstances (e.g., police intervention).
Legal Issue:
Whether substantial preparatory acts could constitute an attempt.
Court Reasoning:
The Supreme Court observed that once a person completes preparation and takes acts substantially directed toward commission of the offence, it amounts to attempt.
Outcome:
The court confirmed liability for attempt despite the crime not being completed.
Significance:
Clarifies that attempt begins when preparation transitions into direct action toward execution.
3. Jiwan BK vs. Government of Nepal (NKP 2078, DN 10739)
Facts:
The accused prepared to attack a victim with acid and carried out some acts toward execution but was interrupted before causing death.
Legal Issue:
Whether his actions constituted attempt to murder or remained preparation.
Court Reasoning:
The court found sufficient evidence of both intent and overt acts directed at the victim. Planning, acquiring the acid, and taking steps to attack amounted to attempt because the act moved beyond mere preparation.
Outcome:
Convicted for attempt to murder.
Significance:
Shows that acquisition of tools plus overt movement toward execution can constitute attempt.
4. Ishwori Raj Bohaju vs. His Majesty’s Government (NKP 2041, DN 2191)
Facts:
The accused tried to kill his brother but the act failed due to intervention.
Legal Issue:
Whether his actions constituted attempt.
Court Reasoning:
The court considered evidence of intent and action. Since the accused engaged in conduct that would have led to the crime but was prevented by an external factor, it qualified as attempt.
Outcome:
Conviction for attempt to murder upheld.
Significance:
Illustrates that the prevention of the offence by external circumstances does not absolve the accused from attempt.
5. Raju Lama vs. Government of Nepal
Facts:
The accused was alleged to have attempted murder, but the evidence was weak regarding intent and actual overt acts.
Legal Issue:
Whether the act amounted to attempt.
Court Reasoning:
The court noted that for attempt, both mens rea and a direct movement toward the crime must be present. The evidence failed to establish either adequately.
Outcome:
Conviction for attempt was not sustained; the acts were deemed mere preparation.
Significance:
Highlights that intent alone without overt action is insufficient for attempt.
6. Bakhtu Tamangni vs. His Majesty’s Government (NKP 2045)
Facts:
Accused allegedly conspired to commit murder but was arrested before taking any steps toward execution.
Legal Issue:
Distinguishing between conspiracy/preparation and attempt.
Court Reasoning:
The court held that mere conspiracy or planning without action does not amount to attempt. Attempt requires a direct step toward committing the offence.
Outcome:
Acquittal for attempt; the act was preparation/conspiracy only.
Significance:
Reinforces the requirement of a “direct movement” toward the commission of the offence.
7. Hypothetical Illustration Based on Doctrine
Person A buys a weapon and waits outside the victim’s house but leaves without action → preparation.
Person A attacks the victim with the weapon but the victim escapes → attempt.
Person A plans to kill but only writes notes → preparation.
Takeaway:
The key elements distinguishing preparation from attempt in Nepalese law:
Intent (Mens Rea) – present in both preparation and attempt.
Overt Act (Actus Reus) – essential for attempt.
Proximity to Crime – attempt occurs when execution begins.
External Interruption – does not negate attempt if overt act was done.
✅ Summary Table of Nepalese Case Illustrations
| Case | Facts | Court’s Finding | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diwakar Pandit | Knife attack prevented by victim’s friend | No attempt, only preparation | Conviction overturned |
| Roshan Shrestha | Substantial steps toward murder | Attempt | Conviction upheld |
| Jiwan BK | Acid attack interrupted | Attempt | Conviction upheld |
| Ishwori Raj Bohaju | Brother attack prevented externally | Attempt | Conviction upheld |
| Raju Lama | Insufficient evidence of intent/action | Preparation | Conviction not sustained |
| Bakhtu Tamangni | Conspiracy without execution | Preparation | Acquittal |
RELATED Blog
comments