Case Studies On Miscarriage Of Justice In Nepalese Courts
⚖️ 1. Introduction
Miscarriage of justice occurs when a court delivers a verdict that is unjust, erroneous, or contrary to the law and evidence, resulting in wrongful conviction or acquittal.
In Nepal, miscarriages of justice can arise due to:
Faulty investigation
Police misconduct (e.g., coercion, torture)
Faulty forensic evidence
Misapplication of law
Bias or judicial error
Legal Framework to Address Miscarriages:
Constitution of Nepal 2015 – guarantees fair trial, presumption of innocence, and right to appeal (Articles 12, 14, 39, 40).
Criminal Procedure Code 2074 (2017) – provides for appeals, retrials, and review petitions.
Supreme Court of Nepal – plays a vital role in correcting miscarriages.
🔍 2. Key Case Studies
Case 1: Laxman Gurung Wrongful Conviction Case (2002)
Court: Supreme Court of Nepal
Facts:
Laxman Gurung was convicted for a murder based on circumstantial evidence and a coerced confession. No eyewitnesses were present, and forensic evidence was inconclusive.
Miscarriage:
The conviction relied heavily on a confession extracted under duress and weak circumstantial evidence.
Court’s Later Intervention:
On appeal, the Supreme Court noted violations of constitutional rights and ICCPR standards.
Conviction was overturned, and Laxman was released after 5 years of wrongful imprisonment.
Significance:
Highlighted dangers of coerced confessions and the importance of due process in criminal investigations.
Case 2: Sita Magar Acquittal Case (2010)
Court: District Court, Kathmandu
Facts:
Sita Magar was accused of poisoning a co-worker. Convicted based on circumstantial evidence (purchase of poison and presence at the scene).
Miscarriage:
Subsequent forensic analysis showed the poison traces were not linked to her, but the court initially ignored this.
Supreme Court Intervention:
On review, the Supreme Court acquitted her, citing failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Significance:
Demonstrates that inadequate investigation and reliance on weak circumstantial evidence can lead to wrongful convictions.
Case 3: Bhim Bahadur KC False Confession Case (2013)
Court: Patan High Court
Facts:
Bhim Bahadur KC confessed to a robbery and murder while under police custody, allegedly under threat. Convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Miscarriage:
Confession was the sole basis for conviction.
Review and Acquittal:
High Court overturned conviction after examining interrogation procedures, lack of corroborating evidence, and the coercion involved.
Significance:
Reinforces the rule that coerced confessions cannot be sole evidence, aligning with CAT and constitutional safeguards.
Case 4: Ram Kumar Thapa Wrongful Conviction (2015)
Court: Supreme Court of Nepal
Facts:
Ram Kumar Thapa was convicted of murder in a politically sensitive case. Eyewitness testimonies were inconsistent, and police failed to preserve crime scene evidence.
Miscarriage:
Conviction heavily relied on politically motivated testimony and procedural lapses.
Supreme Court Intervention:
Conviction quashed, citing violation of fair trial rights and unreliable evidence.
Ordered retrial, ensuring proper procedural safeguards.
Significance:
Highlights political influence and investigative lapses as causes of miscarriages in Nepal.
Case 5: Child Wrongfully Imprisoned – Kailali District Case (2017)
Court: Kailali District Court
Facts:
A 14-year-old boy was accused of arson. Detained in adult facilities without legal counsel or family notification.
Miscarriage:
Denied juvenile procedural rights, including separation from adults and rehabilitation measures.
Supreme Court Intervention:
Court quashed conviction, released the boy, and directed rehabilitation.
Cited CRC Articles 37–40 and domestic Juvenile Justice provisions.
Significance:
Illustrates how procedural violations in juvenile cases can lead to serious miscarriages of justice.
Case 6 (Bonus): Bishnu Prasad Adhikari Torture Case (2008)
Court: Supreme Court of Nepal
Facts:
Bishnu Prasad Adhikari was arrested for murder. Police tortured him to extract a confession. Convicted in trial court based on that confession.
Miscarriage:
Conviction based solely on evidence obtained via torture.
Supreme Court Intervention:
Conviction overturned; accused released.
Established that evidence obtained through torture is inadmissible.
Significance:
Landmark case aligning domestic law with CAT and constitutional guarantees.
🧾 3. Common Patterns in Miscarriages of Justice
| Factor | Explanation | Case Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Coerced Confessions | Police coercion leading to false confessions | Laxman Gurung, Bhim Bahadur KC, Bishnu Prasad Adhikari |
| Weak or Misinterpreted Evidence | Overreliance on circumstantial evidence | Sita Magar, Ram Kumar Thapa |
| Procedural Violations | Lack of fair trial, denial of counsel, juvenile rights violations | Kailali Juvenile Case, Ram Kumar Thapa |
| Political or Social Pressure | Influence on investigation or trial | Ram Kumar Thapa |
| Forensic Errors | Misinterpretation or negligence in scientific evidence | Sita Magar, Bhim Bahadur KC |
🧠 4. Lessons Learned
Due process and constitutional safeguards are critical to prevent wrongful convictions.
Courts increasingly rely on appeals and reviews to correct miscarriages.
Coerced confessions and improper investigations remain major causes of injustice.
Juvenile and vulnerable groups are particularly at risk in the absence of proper procedural protections.
International human rights law (ICCPR, CRC, CAT) plays a pivotal role in guiding courts to rectify injustices.
Nepalese jurisprudence demonstrates a gradual improvement in recognizing miscarriages of justice, but gaps in investigation, forensic reliability, and procedural safeguards still contribute to wrongful convictions.
RELATED Blog
comments