TM Case of Tek Bahadur Reule

Decision No. 7466

Supreme Court, Division Bench

Hon’ble Justice Ram Nagina Singh

Hon’ble Justice Sharda Pd. Pandit

Criminal Appellate No. 2492 of 2058

Case: Homicide

Nepal Government
vs.
Nar Bahadur Reule
 Facts-in-Brief
 Revision petition filed by the plaintiff on the decision of Appeal Court Tulsipur
delivered on 2057/10/10 pursuant to Sec. 12(1)(A) of the Judicial Administration
Act, 2048.
 Facts-in-Brief of the Case
 FIR by Tek Bahadur Reule: During a traditional religious worship of the people
belonging to Reule community a dispute arose about division of the heads of the
sacrificed goat and cock. In the process Tek Bahadur Reule‘s elder brother
Chandralal Reule was grievously hurt by some sharp weapon exercised by an
unknown person. While the injured Chandralal was being taken to the health post
by Tek Bahadur and Nar Bahadur Reule, he succumbed to his injuries on the way.
So he requested for legal action by taking Nar Bahadur into custody.
 A knife was recovered from the land of Nar Bahadur. Nar Bahadur’s wife Jhakki
Reule stated before the police to have hidden the knife there, although she
alleged to have snatched it from the hand of another person named Patrabir
Budhathoki.
 Seven persons including Patrabir Budhathoki gave their statements before the
police alleging that during the dispute Nar Bahadur exercised the knife targeting
to kill Meghraj but accidentally Chandra Lal got hurt who subsequently
succumbed to his injury.
 Facts-in-Brief & Judgment
 Statement of Meghraj during investigation: In course of the dispute between him
and Nar Bahadur about whether there should be 3 or 6 divisions of the heads of
the sacrificed goat and cock, Nar Bahadur targeted at him with knife which
accidentally hurt Chandralal Reule subsequently resulting in his death.
 Confession of Narbahadur before Police: Chandralal Reule, who tried to
intervene and separate us during the dispute, accidentally got wounded by my
knife targeted against Meghraj resulting in his death.
 Narbahadu was prosecuted under Number 1 of the Chapter on Homicide.
 Statement of Narbahur before the Court: While displaying and turning around the
knife to terrorize Meghraj and Patrabir, Chandralal got accidentally injured by the
knife in his left chest. As there was no criminal intention of killing, he pleaded for
punishment, if any, under the provision relating to accidental death.
 Testimony given by witnesses appearing on behalf of the plaintiff and the
defendant.
 Decision of the Trial Court (Salyan District Court): Narbahaur was sentenced to 2
years of imprisonment pursuant to Number 6(2) of the Chapter on Homicide on
2055/9/7.
 Reversal Judgment by Apex Court
 Appeal filed in Appeal Court Tulsipur by HMG seeking conviction under
Number 13(10) on the ground of the principle of Transferred Malice.
 Decision of the Trial Court upheld by Appeal Court Tulsipur on
2057/10/10.
 Permission granted by the Supreme Court for revision of the case pursuant to
Sec. 12(1)(A) of the Judicial Administration Act, 2048 in view of an error relating to
interpretation of Number 5 of the Chapter on Homicide.
 Reversal Judgment by the Supreme Court :
While disposing the case, the apex Court explained the Doctrine of Transferred
Malice as explained by Glanville Williams in his Criminal Law:
“Malice in its legal sense means a wrongful act done intentionally, without just
cause or excuse. ‘Malice’ in law generally means intention or recklessness.
Transferred intention (transferred malice) occurs when an injury intended for
one falls on another by accident. In other words, if the accused intends a
particular consequence he is guilty of crime of intention even though his act takes
effect upon an object (whether person or property) that was not intended. His
‘malice’ is by a legal fiction transferred from the one object to the other. The
accused is then treated for legal purposes as though he had intended to hit the
object that he did hit, though in fact he did not have the intent, nor even was
reckless as to it.”
-Glanville Williams; Criminal Law, 2nd edt., pp72, 73, 75 & 126.
 Reversal Judgment…
 Reversing the Appeal Court’s judgment the apex Court further observed:
1. If the action intended to take place against a targeted person happens
to take place against an untargeted or unintended person, the offence is
treated as committed nevertheless.
 If the strike (prahar) made by a person to kill someone happens to hit
another person resulting in his death, the criminal intent is not
considered to have ended rather it is believed to have been transferred.
And thus criminal liability for intentional killing is created.
2. Attack with a lethal weapon like knife doe not fall under the category of
ordinary stick (latha) or stone (dhunga), and, hence, Number 14 of the
Chapter on Homicide cannot apply in such case.
3. As the knife targeted at Meghraj by Narbahadur accidentally resulted in
the death of Chandralal, his intention (malice) to kill Meghraj can be
rightly considered to have got transferred to Chandralal.
 The Court, therefore, convicted the accused under Number 13(1) of the
Chapter on Homicide but reduced the punishment to 11 years of
imprisonment exercising the Court’s discretionary power under Number
188 of the Muluki Ain.
 Case Analysis
1. Information about revision of the case under Sec. 12(1)(A)
of the Judicial Administration Act, 2048 as the statutory
legal option for appeal was exhausted.
2. Interpretation of various Numbers of the Chapter on
Homicide such as Numer 5 and 6, Number 14 and Number
13(1).
3. A remarkable and just application of the Principle of
Transferred Malice.
 Now the present Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 has incorporated the
doctrine of Transferred Malice in Sec. 180:
If any act done with the intention of killing someone or knowing
that someone may be killed or there being a reason for believing so
results in the death of some person other than that person, he shall be
punished as prescribed in Sections 177, 178 and 179.