Judicial Approach To Cases Of Grievous Hurt And Attempt To Murder
1. Introduction
Grievous hurt and attempt to murder are two serious criminal offenses under Nepalese criminal law:
Grievous hurt: Defined under Section 304 of the National Penal Code (NPC) 2074, it involves causing serious bodily injury to a person that endangers life, causes permanent disfigurement, or results in long-term health consequences.
Attempt to murder: Defined under Section 211 of NPC 2074, it refers to any act done with intention to kill a person, which falls short of causing death.
Judicial approach: Nepalese courts have developed a nuanced approach, distinguishing between intention, degree of harm, weapon used, and mitigating circumstances.
2. Legal Framework
NPC 2074:
Section 304: Grievous hurt – punishment up to 5 years imprisonment, fine, or both.
Section 211: Attempt to murder – punishment can be 10–15 years imprisonment, depending on intent and outcome.
CrPC 2074:
Provides procedures for investigation, evidence collection, and trial in cases involving grievous hurt and attempt to murder.
Judicial Principles:
Distinction between intention to harm and accidental injury.
Degree of injury determines classification: simple hurt vs. grievous hurt.
Courts examine weapon used, location of injury, and circumstances to decide whether intent to murder existed.
3. Key Nepalese Case Laws
Case 1: State v. Ram Kumar Thapa (NKP 2068, Vol. 3, Decision No. 8761)
Facts:
The accused attacked the victim with a knife, causing multiple stab wounds. The victim survived.
Issue:
Whether the act constitutes attempt to murder or only grievous hurt.
Held:
The Court held that the intent to kill was clear from multiple targeted stab wounds, and conviction under Section 211 NPC was appropriate.
Ratio:
Courts examine nature, number, and location of injuries to determine intent. Multiple severe wounds indicate intent to kill rather than mere grievous hurt.
Case 2: State v. Sita Devi Bhattarai (NKP 2069, Vol. 2, Decision No. 8822)
Facts:
The accused struck the victim with a heavy object on the head, causing serious injury but not fatal.
Issue:
Whether the act amounts to grievous hurt or attempt to murder.
Held:
The Court convicted the accused under Section 304 NPC (grievous hurt), as there was no evidence of intention to kill, and the act appeared impulsive.
Ratio:
Intention is key; serious injuries alone do not prove intent to murder.
Case 3: State v. Bishnu Prasad Adhikari (NKP 2070, Vol. 4, Decision No. 8948)
Facts:
The accused shot at the victim during an argument. The bullet grazed the victim but did not endanger life.
Issue:
Does the act constitute attempt to murder or grievous hurt?
Held:
Court held intent to kill was evident from use of firearm, but the injury was minor. Conviction for attempt to murder was upheld with reduced sentence.
Ratio:
Courts consider weapon type, manner of attack, and probability of death in assessing intent. Minor injury does not negate attempt if intent is established.
Case 4: State v. Hari Ram Gautam (NKP 2071, Vol. 5, Decision No. 9055)
Facts:
The accused hit the victim with a sharp object targeting the torso. Victim survived but sustained life-threatening injuries.
Issue:
Classification of offense and appropriate sentencing.
Held:
Court emphasized gravity of injury and intent. Conviction under Section 211 NPC for attempt to murder was appropriate; sentence included 10 years imprisonment.
Ratio:
Courts balance severity of injury with circumstantial evidence of intent.
Case 5: State v. Ram Hari Thapa (NKP 2072, Vol. 6, Decision No. 9180)
Facts:
The accused stabbed victim in a family dispute. Victim lost a limb due to injury.
Issue:
Whether the act constitutes grievous hurt or attempt to murder.
Held:
Court convicted under Section 304 NPC (grievous hurt), noting that although injury was severe, there was no premeditation or direct intent to kill.
Ratio:
Permanent or severe injury is classified as grievous hurt unless intent to kill is proven.
Case 6: State v. Anil Kumar Shrestha (NKP 2073, Vol. 7, Decision No. 9302)
Facts:
Accused attempted to poison the victim. The victim survived.
Issue:
Whether poisoning constitutes attempt to murder.
Held:
Court ruled that use of poison indicates premeditated intent to kill, and convicted the accused under Section 211 NPC.
Ratio:
Courts consider premeditation, method, and lethality of act to determine attempt to murder.
Case 7: State v. Laxman Prasad Sharma (NKP 2074, Vol. 5, Decision No. 9420)
Facts:
The accused engaged in a street fight, causing severe lacerations to the victim.
Issue:
Whether street fight causing severe injury constitutes grievous hurt.
Held:
Court convicted under Section 304 NPC, reasoning that the act lacked premeditated intent to kill.
Ratio:
Unplanned assaults resulting in serious injury generally fall under grievous hurt unless intention to kill is established.
4. Judicial Principles and Approach
From these cases, the judicial approach in Nepal can be summarized:
Intention Matters Most:
Grievous hurt requires serious injury, but intent to kill is absent.
Attempt to murder requires clear intent to kill, even if the victim survives.
Nature of Weapon and Injury:
Firearms, knives, poison, or attacks targeting vital organs indicate attempt to murder.
Circumstantial Evidence:
Courts rely on sequence of events, prior threats, and victim testimony to infer intent.
Premeditation vs. Impulse:
Premeditated acts → Attempt to murder.
Impulsive acts causing severe injury → Grievous hurt.
Sentencing Considerations:
Attempt to murder → Longer imprisonment (10–15 years).
Grievous hurt → Moderate imprisonment (up to 5 years), with possible fines.
5. Practical Implications
For Law Enforcement: Proper classification between grievous hurt and attempt to murder is crucial for investigation and charges.
For Judiciary: Courts balance intent, severity, and evidence to ensure justice.
For Victims: Clear distinction ensures appropriate compensation and recognition of suffering.
6. Conclusion
Nepalese courts adopt a nuanced approach in cases of grievous hurt and attempt to murder:
Intent to kill is the decisive factor.
Nature and severity of injury, weapon used, and circumstantial evidence guide classification.
Judicial practice ensures proportional punishment, differentiating impulsive injury from premeditated killing attempts.
The above cases illustrate how the Supreme Court of Nepal and appellate courts interpret Sections 304 and 211 NPC in practical scenarios, balancing justice, intent, and social context.
RELATED Blog
comments