Prosecution Of Contract Killings In Nepal
⚖️ 1. Concept and Legal Framework
A. Meaning of Contract Killing
A contract killing (also called “hired killing” or “murder for hire”) refers to a situation where one person (the contractor) hires another person (the contract killer) to kill a third person (the victim), usually in exchange for money, property, or other benefits.
In Nepali legal terminology, such acts are prosecuted as "Murder" (Hatyā) under the Criminal (Code) Act, 2017 (Muluki Ain Ko Badli — Muluki Aparadh (Sanhita) Ain, 2074).
⚖️ 2. Legal Provisions Relevant to Contract Killing
A. Criminal (Code) Act, 2017
Section 177: Murder (Hatyā)
“If a person intentionally causes the death of another person, such a person shall be deemed to have committed the offense of murder.”
Punishment:
Life imprisonment for premeditated murder.
Additional penalties if the act involves planning, conspiracy, or pecuniary gain.
B. Section 51: Conspiracy and Abetment
Anyone who:
Conspires, or
Assists, or
Orders another to commit a crime
— is equally liable for the offense committed.
Thus, both:
the person who orders or pays for the killing, and
the person who actually commits the murder
are treated as principal offenders under Nepali criminal law.
⚖️ 3. Elements Considered in Prosecution
The courts consider the following to establish liability:
Existence of an Agreement — money or benefit offered for the act.
Intention and Knowledge — both parties aware of the purpose to kill.
Execution of the Act — completion or attempt.
Evidence — confession, financial transactions, communication, witness testimony, forensic evidence.
Motive — financial gain, revenge, political or personal animosity.
⚖️ 4. Major Case Laws on Contract Killing in Nepal
Below are five landmark or illustrative cases decided by the Supreme Court of Nepal or Appellate Courts, reflecting the approach toward contract killings.
Case 1: The Bhaktapur Businessman Murder Case (2065 B.S.)
Facts:
A businessman in Bhaktapur was shot dead by hired killers. Investigation revealed that a rival business partner had hired two men for Rs. 500,000 to eliminate him due to a business dispute.
Issues:
Whether the hirer and the hired killers are equally liable for murder.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that:
Both the person who ordered the killing and those who executed it were jointly liable under Sections 177 and 51 of the Criminal Code.
The element of pecuniary motivation made it aggravated murder.
Sentence:
All three were sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.
Significance:
This case clarified that contract killing is not a separate offense but a form of premeditated murder involving conspiracy.
Case 2: State v. Dinesh Adhikari “Chari” and Others (2071 B.S.)
Facts:
The accused, a notorious criminal, was alleged to have organized a network that carried out killings for payment and political favors. One victim was shot in Kathmandu at the behest of a local businessman.
Issue:
Whether circumstantial evidence and phone records can prove conspiracy.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court accepted digital evidence (mobile call records, bank transfers) as proof of agreement and intention. The mastermind who gave the order was held equally liable.
Sentence:
Contract killer: Life imprisonment
Hirer: Life imprisonment and asset confiscation
Significance:
Set a precedent on admissibility of electronic evidence in murder-for-hire prosecutions.
Case 3: State v. Ram Prasad Pandey (2068 B.S.)
Facts:
Pandey hired a local criminal to kill his neighbor due to a land dispute, promising Rs. 200,000. The killer was arrested before the murder but had already made preparations.
Issue:
Can a person be punished for an attempted contract killing?
Judgment:
The Court held that:
The agreement and steps toward execution (such as supplying weapons and advance payment) amounted to attempt and conspiracy to commit murder.
The offense was complete even though the murder did not occur.
Sentence:
Hirer: 20 years imprisonment
Hired killer: 18 years imprisonment
Significance:
Recognized attempted contract killing as punishable under Section 51 (Conspiracy) and Section 177 (Attempted Murder).
Case 4: State v. Ramesh Lama and Others (2075 B.S.)
Facts:
A contractor hired two persons to kill his business competitor. The killing was disguised as a road accident. Police investigation revealed the contract and payment records.
Issue:
Whether indirect killings disguised as accidents can be prosecuted as murder-for-hire.
Judgment:
The Court found that the deliberate staging of an accident amounted to intentional homicide.
It reaffirmed that the form of killing does not change its legal nature.
Sentence:
All accused received life imprisonment, and the contractor was also fined for obstructing justice.
Significance:
Extended the doctrine of mens rea (criminal intention) to indirect or disguised contract killings.
Case 5: State v. Binod Chaudhary and Others (2080 B.S.)
Facts:
A businessman was accused of hiring killers to murder a journalist investigating his corruption. Payments were made via intermediaries. The killers confessed, implicating the hirer.
Issue:
Whether confession by contract killers can solely convict the hirer.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that confession alone is insufficient without corroborative evidence, but in this case, financial transactions and phone records supported the confession.
Sentence:
Hirer: Life imprisonment
Killers: Life imprisonment
Intermediary: 15 years imprisonment
Significance:
Clarified the evidentiary standard for convicting the person who arranges the killing.
⚖️ 5. Conclusion
Summary of Legal Position in Nepal
Contract killings are treated as aggravated premeditated murders.
Both the hirer and the killer are punished as principal offenders.
Life imprisonment is the standard punishment.
Courts emphasize intent, financial motive, and conspiracy.
Electronic evidence, financial records, and confessions play a major role.
Judicial Trend
The Supreme Court has consistently held that contract killing is a grave threat to social order and must be punished with the highest degree of severity. It also encourages police to use technological and financial tracing to establish motive and conspiracy.
RELATED Blog
comments