Criminal Liability In Cases Of Reckless Endangerment And Negligence
1. Case: Ram Bahadur Thapa vs. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2015)
Facts:
Ram Bahadur Thapa, a construction contractor, was involved in a building collapse that caused injuries to workers and passersby.
Investigation revealed that the building did not meet safety standards, and Thapa ignored multiple warnings.
Legal Proceedings:
Charged under the Criminal Code, 2017 (Section 203: causing death or injury by negligence).
Victims also filed claims for compensation.
Outcome & Analysis:
Court held Thapa criminally liable for reckless endangerment and negligence, emphasizing that failure to ensure basic safety measures constitutes criminal negligence.
The court imposed imprisonment and a fine.
Key takeaway: Liability arises even without intent to harm, as long as gross negligence or reckless disregard is present.
2. Case: Kathmandu Bus Accident Case (2018, District Court, Kathmandu)
Facts:
A private bus driver caused a major accident due to speeding and failing to maintain brakes, injuring 15 passengers and killing 2.
Legal Proceedings:
Charged under Section 203 and 204 of the Criminal Code (death and injury by negligence).
Evidence included witness testimonies, vehicle inspection reports, and traffic records.
Outcome & Analysis:
Court convicted the driver and imposed both imprisonment and compensation obligations.
Court emphasized that reckless endangerment of public safety, especially in transport, is treated as criminal negligence.
This case illustrates public safety liability in Nepal’s criminal law.
3. Case: Dr. Suresh KC Medical Negligence Case (2016, High Court, Kathmandu)
Facts:
Dr. Suresh KC allegedly administered the wrong dosage of anesthesia, causing death during surgery.
Investigation found violation of medical protocols and failure to check patient vitals.
Legal Proceedings:
Charged under Section 203 of the Criminal Code (culpable homicide by negligence).
Victim’s family filed a civil claim for damages simultaneously.
Outcome & Analysis:
Court ruled the doctor criminally negligent, as actions were reckless without intention to harm.
Sentenced to imprisonment and ordered compensation to family.
Highlighted that in professional contexts, failure to follow standards of care can constitute criminal liability.
4. Case: Pokhara Factory Explosion (2017, District Court, Kaski)
Facts:
A chemical factory stored volatile substances improperly, resulting in an explosion that killed 4 workers and injured 12.
Owner ignored safety regulations and failed to provide protective equipment.
Legal Proceedings:
Owner and manager charged under Sections 203 and 204 of the Criminal Code (negligent homicide and causing injury by negligence).
Outcome & Analysis:
Court convicted both parties, emphasizing that gross negligence in industrial operations can amount to criminal liability.
Compensation was ordered for victims and families.
Key principle: Negligent acts endangering others’ lives are punishable regardless of intent.
5. Case: Narayan Singh Traffic Death Case (Supreme Court, 2014)
Facts:
Narayan Singh, a truck driver, caused a fatal accident by overspeeding and ignoring traffic rules, resulting in 3 deaths.
Legal Proceedings:
Charged under Criminal Code Sections 203-204.
Defense argued there was no intention to kill.
Outcome & Analysis:
Court convicted Singh for culpable homicide by negligence, noting that criminal liability does not require intention; gross negligence suffices.
Sentencing included imprisonment and mandatory compensation.
Emphasized the duty of care owed by drivers to public safety.
6. Case: Hydro-electric Project Landslide Case (High Court, 2019, Dhading)
Facts:
Construction company working on a hydro-electric project failed to implement slope stabilization, causing a landslide that killed 5 workers.
Legal Proceedings:
Company officials charged under Criminal Code, Sections 203 and 204.
Investigation proved they ignored environmental and safety guidelines.
Outcome & Analysis:
Court found reckless endangerment and negligence, even though the harm was unintentional.
Officials sentenced to imprisonment and ordered compensation to victims’ families.
Established that corporate negligence leading to loss of life is criminally punishable in Nepal.
Key Observations Across Cases
Legal Basis: Criminal liability is mainly under Sections 203-204 of the Criminal Code of Nepal, covering death or injury caused by negligence or recklessness.
No Intent Required: Liability arises even without intent; what matters is gross negligence or disregard for safety.
Professional and Public Contexts: Courts recognize criminal negligence in medical, industrial, and transport sectors, among others.
Punishment and Compensation: Courts impose both imprisonment and monetary compensation, highlighting dual accountability.
Preventive Principle: Convictions serve not only to punish but also to deter future negligent behavior.
RELATED Blog
comments