His Majesty’s of Government of
Nepal vs Mayashwori Damini
Submitted by: Submitted to: Aarju Karki
Asmin Basnet
Ashmita Sharma
Bipika Silwal
Bikash Saud
Introduction
• Decision no. : 1414-2
• Decision date : 2037/10/9/5
• Decided by : Division bench
• Judges : Honorable Chief Justice Shree Nayan
Bahadur Khatri and Honorable Judge Shree
Trilokya Aryal
• Plaintiff : His Majesty’s Government of Nepal
• Defendant : Mayashwori Damini
• Case : Related to the crime dies with criminal
Fact of the case
• In this notable case, the primary accused, Mr. Singhanath Kusle, was convicted by the
District Court of Baglung, which sentenced him to life imprisonment along with an
order to confiscate all of his movable and immovable property. The conviction
stemmed from a serious criminal charge. However, before the case could be reviewed
and decided upon by the Paschimanchal Regional Court, Mr. Kusle passed away while
serving his sentence in prison.
• Due to his untimely death, the proceedings concerning his case came to a halt, and his
criminal liability was extinguished. This instance aligns with the long-standing legal
doctrine that "criminal liability does not survive the death of the accused," often
phrased in Latin as "actio personalis moritur cum persona"—which translates to "a
personal action dies with the person." The principle affirms that a criminal case
becomes void upon the death of the accused since penal laws are designed to reform
and deter the individual rather than punish posthumously.
Fact of the Case
• Alongside Singhanath Kusle, Ms. Mayeshwori Damini, who was involved in the
same matter as a proclaiming seeker (सडक जाहेर गर्ने)—a party claiming
rights in relation to the case—was also charged. The Baglung District Court
sentenced her to five years of imprisonment for her role in the case. When the
matter was appealed, the Paschimanchal Regional Court, in its decision dated
2037/3/30 B.S., upheld the verdict of the District Court and reaffirmed the
sentence of five years' imprisonment against Ms. Damini.
• This case serves as a judicial precedent in Nepal, particularly in reinforcing the
procedural norm that the death of an accused nullifies the possibility of
continuing criminal proceedings against them. While the state retains the
authority to pursue financial penalties or civil claims against the estate of a
deceased person under certain circumstances, the penal consequence such as
imprisonment or criminal conviction ceases to be applicable.
Related Law
• Adalati Bandobasta 186 no. In the case where
the death penalty is punishable by life
imprisonment, or life imprisonment, the
provision to proclaim the seeker.
• A.D. 176 no. Dead person is not liable for
crime so in that situation not necessary to
proclaim the seeker.
Decision of Supreme Court
• According to A.D.186 and 176 , not necessary
to proclaim the seeker from the defendant.
So, the defendant Singhanath Kusle
punishment was finished based on the
principal of crime dies with criminal so in this
case not necessary to proclaim the seeker.
• And in the case of Mayashwori Damini ,who
proclaimed the seeker , cut off the sadak ko
lagat and do according to law.
Established Principle
• Crimes dies with criminals.
• The principle "Crime Dies with the Criminal" is derived from the Latin
maxim:
• "Actio personalis moritur cum persona"
(A personal action dies with the person)
• This legal doctrine posits that criminal liability is inherently personal and
cannot be transferred, inherited, or continued against the legal heirs or
representatives of a deceased accused. Therefore, if an accused person
dies during the course of a criminal investigation, trial, or even appeal, the
criminal proceedings are abated (terminated) as a matter of law.
Established Principle
• Criminal responsibility is personal and differs
from that of civil libality.
• No further legal actions or legal liability should
be subjected to the person entitled with
criminal offence after his/her death
• The state cannot transfer the criminal libality
to the family or hiers as criminal offence is a
topic of personal subject
Nepali cases citing this Principle
• Rana v. Gov. of Nepal (SC)
• The court reiterated that criminal proceedings
cannot continue against a deceased individual
• Sharma v. His Majesty government(High Court)
• Property seizure related to a deceased accused
was challenged successfully based on this
principle.
Conclusion
• The Principle “Crime dies with criminal”is not just a
legal rule,It is a reflection of,
• Justice
• Fairness
• Human rights
• The separation of criminal liability with Civil liability
• Altogetherly, it draws a moral and legal boundary
that prevents unjust punishment beyond the grave.
