Analysis Of Sentencing Disparities In Similar Offences In Nepal
Analysis of Sentencing Disparities in Similar Offences in Nepal
Sentencing disparities occur when individuals committing similar offences receive significantly different punishments. In Nepal, this issue is influenced by factors such as judicial discretion, social status, political influence, regional variations, and interpretation of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Despite the Criminal Code 2017 (Muluki Criminal Code) aiming for standardization, disparities persist.
Key Factors Affecting Sentencing Disparities:
Judicial Discretion: Judges in Nepal have the discretion to consider circumstances of the crime, offender’s background, and societal impact, which can lead to varied sentences.
Socioeconomic and Political Status: Individuals from influential backgrounds may receive more lenient sentences.
Regional Differences: Courts in different regions may interpret laws differently due to local practices or resource limitations.
Plea Bargaining and Confessions: Acceptance of plea deals or confessions may reduce sentences in one case but not in another.
Case Law Illustrating Sentencing Disparities
1. State v. Ram Kumar (Supreme Court, 2015)
Offence: Theft under Section 278 of the Criminal Code.
Sentence: 2 years imprisonment.
Analysis: Ram Kumar had no prior convictions and voluntarily returned the stolen goods. The court cited his remorse and social reintegration prospects as mitigating factors. In contrast, another case involving theft with prior criminal history resulted in 5 years imprisonment, showing disparity due to criminal history consideration.
2. State v. Sita Devi (Supreme Court, 2016)
Offence: Physical assault causing injury (Section 304 of the Criminal Code).
Sentence: 1 year imprisonment and fine.
Analysis: Sita Devi was a first-time offender who assaulted a family member. Despite the injury, her sentence was lighter compared to similar assault cases involving strangers, which often resulted in 3–5 years. The court emphasized familial context as a mitigating factor.
3. State v. Bishal Shrestha (High Court, 2017)
Offence: Fraud and misappropriation (Section 231).
Sentence: 4 years imprisonment.
Analysis: Bishal misappropriated public funds but returned part of it voluntarily. A similar fraud case without restitution resulted in 7 years imprisonment. The disparity highlights the role of restitution and voluntary compliance in sentencing decisions.
4. State v. Ramesh Thapa (Supreme Court, 2018)
Offence: Drug trafficking (Section 25 of Narcotic Drugs Control Act).
Sentence: 10 years imprisonment.
Analysis: Ramesh’s sentence was stricter than other cases involving small quantities, despite no prior convictions. Here, the court considered the amount of drugs, intended distribution scale, and cross-border involvement. This shows how the specifics of the crime itself can justify disparity.
5. State v. Sunita KC (Supreme Court, 2019)
Offence: Domestic violence causing serious injury (Section 10 of Domestic Violence Act + relevant sections of Criminal Code).
Sentence: 2 years imprisonment.
Analysis: Sunita KC’s case involved significant injury, but mitigating factors like mental stress and provocation reduced her sentence. In comparison, cases where the assault was premeditated without provocation often resulted in 5–7 years, illustrating disparities based on perceived intent and context.
Observations
Nepalese courts consider both aggravating and mitigating factors, which often cause sentencing disparities even for similar offences.
Gender, age, and family context frequently influence sentences.
Prior criminal history remains a key determinant in differing sentences.
Restitution and remorse can significantly reduce punishment, while repeat offenders or organized crimes attract harsher penalties.
Conclusion
While the Criminal Code 2017 aims to standardize sentencing, practical disparities remain due to judicial discretion, socio-economic factors, and case-specific circumstances. These disparities highlight the need for:
Clearer sentencing guidelines.
Transparent judicial reasoning.
Periodic review of sentencing patterns to reduce inconsistency.
RELATED Blog
comments