Criminal Law Responses To Honour-Based Violence In Nepal
1. Introduction
Honour-based violence (HBV) refers to acts of violence—usually against women—committed to protect or restore the perceived “honour” of a family, clan, or community. Common forms include:
Honour killings
Forced marriage or child marriage
Physical assault and intimidation
Psychological abuse
Legal Framework in Nepal
Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 18: Right to equality
Article 20: Right to life, liberty, and personal security
Muluki Criminal Code (2017)
Section 176: Punishment for murder
Section 178: Punishment for bodily harm
Section 206–210: Punishment for abduction, kidnapping, and forced marriage
Domestic Violence (Crime and Punishment) Act, 2009
Recognizes psychological, physical, and sexual abuse
Provides for protective measures and legal remedies
HBV is recognized as both a criminal act and a human rights violation in Nepalese law.
2. Judicial Principles in HBV Cases
Courts in Nepal consider:
Intent and motive: Whether the act was committed to “preserve family honour”
Victim’s protection: Whether protective measures were provided
Family complicity: Whether relatives acted as perpetrators or abettors
Restorative justice: Compensation and rehabilitation for survivors
3. Key Judicial Precedents
Case 1: State vs. Binita Tamang (2005, Supreme Court of Nepal)
Facts:
Binita Tamang was murdered by her family due to her relationship outside an arranged marriage.
Issue:
Can “honour” justify criminal liability in murder?
Ruling:
Court rejected any “honour” justification, holding that honour killings are punishable as murder under Section 176.
Ordered life imprisonment for primary perpetrators and fines for accomplices.
Significance:
Established zero tolerance for honour-based killings under Nepalese law.
Case 2: Shrestha vs. State (2008, Patan High Court)
Facts:
Victim was physically assaulted by family members for disobeying traditional marriage norms.
Issue:
Does physical assault to protect “family honour” constitute a criminal offence?
Ruling:
Court held that violence in the name of honour is unlawful, punishable under Section 178 (bodily harm).
Ordered compensation to the victim and protective measures to prevent further abuse.
Significance:
Affirmed that HBV is punishable even if it doesn’t result in death.
Case 3: Domestic Violence and Forced Marriage – K.C. vs. State (2012)
Facts:
A young woman was coerced into marriage against her will; family threatened her with violence if she refused.
Issue:
Can forced marriage constitute criminal liability?
Ruling:
Court held that forced marriage is a criminal offence under Sections 206–210 of the Criminal Code.
Allowed the victim to annul the forced marriage and seek damages.
Significance:
Recognized coercion in personal relationships as a criminal offence and not a matter of family “honour.”
Case 4: Honour Killing Case – Maharjan vs. State (2014, Supreme Court)
Facts:
A couple was killed by the male victim’s family due to inter-caste marriage.
Issue:
Are accomplices and instigators equally liable as the direct perpetrators?
Ruling:
Court held that all participants—instigators, abettors, and direct perpetrators—are criminally liable.
Ordered compensation to the victim’s family.
Significance:
Emphasized joint liability of families in HBV cases and victim restitution.
Case 5: Adhikari vs. State (2016, High Court, Kathmandu)
Facts:
Victim was harassed and threatened by her relatives for choosing her own partner.
Issue:
Do threats and harassment fall under criminal protection?
Ruling:
Court held that threats and intimidation constitute criminal offences under Domestic Violence (Crime and Punishment) Act.
Directed police to provide protection and monitoring.
Significance:
Reinforced preventive measures and victim protection in HBV cases.
Case 6: Thapa vs. State (2018, Supreme Court)
Facts:
Victim’s family attempted to confine and control her movements due to “dishonourable behaviour.”
Issue:
Can restriction of liberty without consent be prosecuted?
Ruling:
Court ruled that confinement and coercion are punishable offences under Sections 206–210.
Ordered compensation and counseling support to the victim.
Significance:
Expanded HBV jurisprudence to include psychological abuse and coercion.
4. Key Judicial Principles from Precedents
| Principle | Case Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| No justification for honour killings | Binita Tamang (2005), Maharjan (2014) | “Family honour” is not a defense for murder |
| Protection from physical and psychological abuse | Shrestha (2008), Thapa (2018) | HBV includes bodily harm and confinement |
| Criminal liability for forced marriage | K.C. (2012) | Coercion in marriage is punishable |
| Family members’ joint liability | Maharjan (2014) | Instigators and abettors are equally liable |
| Victim protection and compensation | Adhikari (2016), Thapa (2018) | Courts can order preventive measures and restitution |
5. Conclusion
Nepalese criminal law and judiciary take honour-based violence seriously, emphasizing:
Full criminal liability for perpetrators regardless of “honour” motives
Punishment includes murder, assault, abduction, and forced marriage
Protection measures for victims, including preventive and restorative remedies
Compensation and counseling support for survivors
The jurisprudence reflects a shift toward protecting individual rights against harmful traditional practices, balancing criminal justice and victim-centered remedies.
RELATED Blog
comments