Law of Hurt in Nepal (2026): Simple, Grievous & Negligent Hurt Guide

Most physical-violence cases that reach a Nepali District Court are not homicide and not assault in the technical sense — they are charges of "hurt" under Sections 191 to 197 of the Muluki Criminal Code 2074 (2017). The hurt provisions are the workhorse of personal-violence prosecution in Nepal, covering everything from a punch in a domestic argument to permanent disability caused by a road accident. The 2074 codification structured the offence into a clean set of categories — simple hurt, grievous hurt, hurt by provocation, negligent hurt — and matched each to a distinct punishment tier and compensation framework.

This guide is the 2026 (2083 BS) practitioner's view of the law of hurt in Nepal: every section a Nepali District Court will cite, the difference between simple and grievous hurt, the punishment tiers from a Rs 30,000 fine to ten years' imprisonment, the provocation defence under Section 194, the negligent-hurt offence under Section 195, and how victims pursue both a criminal prosecution and a civil tort claim alongside. Whether you are a victim deciding whether to file an FIR, a defendant facing a charge, or counsel preparing the file, this is the document you will work from.

Alpine Law Associates — Nepal Bar Council-registered criminal-law team handling hurt prosecutions, victim-side compensation claims, defence representation and parallel tort recovery for 1,000+ clients.

Speak with our lawyers today →

What is the law of hurt in Nepal in 2026?

The law of hurt is the part of Nepali criminal law that punishes physical injury short of homicide. It sits in the Muluki Criminal Code 2074 (2017), Chapter on Offences against Body, Sections 191 to 197. The 2074 codification replaced the older Muluki Ain provisions and produced a structured hierarchy: a definition section, named categories (simple, grievous, hurt by provocation, negligent hurt), specific aggravating circumstances (hurt by dangerous weapons, hurt by poison, hurt to public servant), and a compensation framework that lets victims recover financial loss alongside the criminal punishment.

Two doctrinal lines run through the chapter and shape every case. First, the actus reus (the act causing hurt) and the mens rea (the mental state behind it) must both be established for the most serious tier — intentional grievous hurt with up to ten years' imprisonment. Second, the result-based grading: the same act can be simple hurt or grievous hurt depending on the consequences (a permanent loss of limb is grievous regardless of the attacker's intent if intention to cause hurt is established). The interplay between intent and result is the most-litigated question in 2026 hurt cases.

Section 191 — what counts as "hurt" in Nepali law?

Section 191 of the Muluki Criminal Code 2074 defines hurt broadly. Hurt is caused when a person, by any act, causes:

1. Bodily pain to another — the most common category, covering punches, slaps, kicks, pushing that causes pain even without visible injury.
2. Disease in another — transmission of an infectious disease intentionally or by reckless conduct (knowingly transmitting a communicable disease).
3. Infirmity in another — temporary loss of capacity, dizziness or daze induced by an act, even where no physical pain is reported.

The breadth of the definition is deliberate: it captures conduct that visibly hurts and conduct whose harm is invisible to the eye but real (disease transmission, induced infirmity). Medical evidence is decisive at trial — the District Court will not convict for hurt without a medical report from a registered hospital documenting the injury, disease or infirmity. The prosecution must establish three elements: an act by the accused, the resulting hurt to the victim, and the requisite mental state (intention for serious offences, negligence for Section 195).

Section 192 — grievous hurt and how it differs from simple hurt

Section 192 elevates a hurt to grievous hurt where the consequences fall into one of the listed categories. Grievous hurt carries materially higher punishment than simple hurt, so the section-192 categorisation often becomes the central question in a hurt trial.

Hurt is grievous when it causes any of the following:

• Loss of a limb or any part of the body — amputation, severance.
• Loss or impairment of any sense — sight, hearing, speech, smell, taste.
• Loss of professional ability — permanent inability to perform the victim's normal occupation.
• Disfigurement — permanent and visible alteration of the head or face.
• Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
• Wound endangering life — any injury that, in its nature or setting, threatened the victim's life.
• Hurt causing the victim to suffer twenty days of severe bodily pain — the duration-based threshold.
• Hurt causing the victim to be unable to follow ordinary pursuits for twenty days or more.

Medical evidence drives the grievous-vs-simple classification. The treating doctor's report, the duration of treatment, the recovery prognosis, and any disability certification become the foundation. Expert medical evidence under Section 23 of the Evidence Act 2031 is routinely called in contested cases — see our companion principles of evidence law guide.

Punishment tiers under the Criminal Code 2074

The punishment for hurt is structured in four tiers, each with prison and fine ranges set by the Code. Within each tier, the actual sentence depends on aggravating or mitigating circumstances — the use of weapons, the relationship between accused and victim, the victim's vulnerability, the accused's prior record, and any compensation paid.

Section 194 — hurt by grave and sudden provocation

Section 194 carves out a partial defence where the hurt was caused on grave and sudden provocation. The reduction in penalty reflects the law's recognition that human reaction to extreme provocation is morally distinct from cold-blooded violence — without excusing the conduct, the Code lowers the punishment band where the requirements are met.

To succeed on the provocation reduction, the accused must establish three elements. First, there was a provocation by the victim or a person with the victim. Second, the provocation was grave — sufficient to drive a reasonable person to lose self-control, not merely an irritation or insult. Third, the response was sudden — the accused did not have a "cooling off" period during which the passion would have subsided. The case law has refined each element: words alone may amount to grave provocation in some circumstances; the sudden requirement excludes premeditated retaliation; and the response must be proportionate to the provocation.

The provocation defence reduces but does not eliminate the offence. The District Court records the finding of grave and sudden provocation and applies a reduced penalty within the band the Code permits. Provocation is among the most-pleaded reductions in domestic-violence-related hurt cases, where the accused often claims that the victim's words or conduct triggered the response.

Section 195 — negligent hurt and its central role in road-traffic cases

Section 195 criminalises hurt caused by negligence — without intent to cause hurt but with culpable carelessness. The punishment is materially lower than intentional hurt: up to six months' imprisonment and / or a proportionate fine. The reduced sentence reflects the lesser moral culpability of negligence compared to intentional conduct, but the offence remains a criminal one with a record on conviction.

Negligent hurt is the section most invoked in road-traffic accidents — the careless driver who hits a pedestrian or another vehicle, causing injury short of death. It also covers workplace incidents (negligent operation of machinery causing a colleague's injury), medical errors (negligent treatment causing harm short of death), and recreational accidents. The prosecution must establish the duty of care owed by the accused, the breach of that duty (the act of negligence), and that the breach caused the hurt. Standards from the Civil Code 2074 tort framework — see our tort law in Nepal guide — inform the negligence analysis, though the criminal offence is technically separate from the civil tort.

Aggravating and special circumstances under Sections 196–197

Sections 196 and 197 extend the basic hurt provisions to special victim or method categories. The most important sub-categories are:

• Hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Hurt caused by a knife, firearm, explosive, corrosive substance, fire, or any other instrument likely to cause death attracts enhanced punishment compared to bare-hands hurt of the same severity.
• Hurt by poison or stupefying substance. Administration of poison or any substance that incapacitates the victim — used in robbery and abduction cases — is treated more severely than ordinary hurt.
• Hurt to public servants in the discharge of duty. Hurt to police officers, judges, government officials, election officers and other public servants while they are performing their duties carries enhanced punishment to protect the integrity of public functions.
• Hurt to women, children, elderly or disabled persons. Aggravating circumstance where the victim is in a protected category; sentencing tends to the upper end of the band.
• Hurt with intent to extort confession or compel an act. Custodial torture and intimidation cases attract Section 196's enhanced framework.

How a hurt case proceeds — from FIR to verdict

1. FIR at Nepal Police. The victim or a witness files a First Information Report at the local police station. The FIR records the date, time, place, accused (if known), and the nature of the hurt. The police register the case and begin investigation.
2. Medical examination. The victim is examined at a registered hospital. The medical report is the central piece of evidence — it documents the injury type, severity, treatment provided, and the prognosis. For grievous hurt charges, a board examination may be conducted.
3. Police investigation. The police record statements of the victim, accused (if available), and witnesses; collect physical evidence (weapons, clothing, photographs of the scene); and prepare a charge sheet for the prosecutor.
4. Charge sheet to the Office of Attorney General. The prosecutor reviews the file and decides whether to charge. The charge sheet specifies the section under the Criminal Code 2074 — simple hurt under the basic provision, grievous hurt under Section 192, negligent hurt under Section 195.
5. Trial at District Court. The accused is arraigned, the charge is read, and the trial proceeds under the Criminal Procedure Code 2074. Examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and the medical expert's testimony form the core of the trial.
6. Verdict and sentence. The court delivers a judgment. On conviction, the sentence is fixed within the band the Code permits, considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances. A compensation order alongside the criminal sentence is common.
7. Appeal. Either side may appeal a District Court verdict to the High Court within thirty-five days under the Criminal Procedure Code 2074. A further appeal to the Supreme Court is available on substantial questions of law.

Compensation alongside the criminal sentence — and the parallel tort claim

Conviction for hurt in Nepal usually triggers two financial consequences for the accused. First, the criminal fine — payable to the state under the Code's punishment provisions. Second, a compensation order to the victim — covering medical expenses, lost earnings during recovery, and (in grievous-hurt cases) a sum reflecting the permanent damage. The Criminal Procedure Code 2074 empowers the District Court to order compensation alongside the sentence; the order is enforceable through the court's execution branch like any other money decree.

The victim can also file a parallel civil tort claim under Sections 672–684 of the Muluki Civil Code 2074. The tort claim is independent of the criminal prosecution — different forum (civil bench of District Court), different standard of proof (balance of probabilities versus beyond reasonable doubt), and different limitation (six months under the Civil Code, longer for the criminal route). Acquittal in the criminal case does not bar the civil claim because the standards differ. For comprehensive cover see our tort law in Nepal guide. Counsel for the victim typically pursues both routes — the criminal prosecution provides accountability and compensation, while the tort claim secures additional damages including pain-and-suffering and consequential loss.

Defences to a hurt charge

• Self-defence. Where the hurt was caused while reasonably defending the accused's own person or another's against an unlawful attack, self-defence operates as a complete defence. The force used must be proportionate to the threat.
• Consent. Where the victim consented to the act (sporting context, medical procedure, certain forms of mutual contact), consent is a defence. Consent is not a defence to grievous hurt or where the act caused permanent damage.
• Accident without negligence. A genuine accident where the accused acted without negligence and the harm was unforeseeable. The Section 195 negligence threshold operates as a backstop — even an unintended hurt is criminal if negligence is established.
• Provocation under Section 194. A partial defence reducing the penalty where grave and sudden provocation is established, as discussed above.
• No causation. Where the prosecution cannot prove that the accused's act caused the victim's injury — common where the victim had pre-existing conditions or was hurt in a multi-actor incident.
• Mistaken identity. Where the accused was not the actual perpetrator. Identification evidence at trial is tested through cross-examination of witnesses.

Common evidence questions in hurt cases

Three evidence questions decide most contested hurt cases. First, the medical report — its accuracy, the doctor's qualifications, the timing of the examination, and the consistency between the report and the alleged injuries. Defence counsel commonly attack the medical report at cross-examination if the doctor's qualifications or the documentation chain is weak. Second, witness identification of the accused — particularly in cases where the accused was not previously known to the victim. Third, the simple-vs-grievous classification — a finding of grievous hurt under Section 192 doubles or triples the sentence, so the boundary between the two categories is heavily litigated through medical and lay evidence.

For prosecutors and victim-side counsel, the working rule is to lock down the medical evidence chain at the FIR stage: medical examination at a registered hospital within 24 hours, photographic record of injuries, treatment record retention, and medical board involvement for grievous-hurt classification where appropriate. Late or incomplete medical evidence is the single largest cause of acquittal in hurt cases. See our principles of evidence law guide for the underlying admissibility framework.

How can Alpine Law Associates help with a hurt case?

Alpine Law Associates handles hurt matters from both sides of the dock. For victims, we run the file from FIR through compensation collection: FIR drafting, medical evidence preservation, liaison with the police investigation, prosecution support at the District Court trial, and compensation enforcement. We coordinate the criminal prosecution with a parallel civil tort claim under Civil Code §§672–684 to maximise the victim's total recovery. For accused persons, we handle defence representation across the full range — bail applications, evidence challenge, provocation and self-defence arguments, plea negotiations where appropriate, and High Court appeals on conviction.

For corporate clients facing Section 195 negligent-hurt exposure (workplace accidents, road incidents involving company vehicles, customer-injury cases on premises), we coordinate criminal defence with insurance and compliance work. As a full-service law firm in Nepal, we run hurt files alongside related civil tort, employment, and insurance lines. NRN clients with hurt-related matters in Nepal can engage remotely through power of attorney for civil aspects, though criminal trial attendance is generally required.

Speak with our lawyers today →

Last reviewed: April 2026