Criminal Liability For Abuse Of Disabled Persons
Criminal Liability for Abuse of Disabled Persons in Nepal
🔹 Conceptual Overview
Abuse of disabled persons involves any act that causes physical, psychological, sexual, or economic harm to individuals with disabilities. This can include:
Physical violence or assault
Neglect of care
Exploitation for labor or financial gain
Psychological abuse or harassment
Disabled persons are considered vulnerable under the law, and Nepalese legislation provides both preventive and punitive measures to protect their rights.
⚖️ Legal Framework
Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 18: Right to equality and non-discrimination
Article 28: Right to social justice for disadvantaged groups, including persons with disabilities
Article 42: Right to protection from exploitation, abuse, and discrimination
Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 BS
Section 176: Exploitation of vulnerable persons
Section 177: Coercion and abuse of vulnerable persons
Section 179: Aggravated punishment if abuse is committed against physically or mentally disabled persons
Sections 170–173: Assault, harassment, and sexual abuse provisions
Protection and Welfare of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2074 BS
Criminalizes abuse, neglect, and exploitation
Provides for punishment, compensation, and rehabilitation
International Instruments
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), 2006 – Nepal is a signatory
🔹 Judicial Principles
Nepalese courts have recognized:
Heightened protection for disabled persons due to vulnerability
Aggravated liability for abuse or exploitation of disabled persons
Punishment includes imprisonment, fines, and compensation
State accountability in cases of neglect in institutional care
Recognition of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse as criminal acts
🔹 Landmark Case Law Analysis
1. Ram Bahadur Gurung v. State, 2062 BS
Facts:
Ram Bahadur Gurung was accused of physically assaulting a mentally disabled person in a care facility.
Issue:
Does assault on a disabled person attract aggravated criminal liability?
Decision:
The Court convicted the accused under Sections 176 and 179 of the Criminal Code, imposing higher penalties than standard assault cases.
Significance:
Set a precedent for aggravated punishment for abuse of vulnerable disabled persons.
2. Sita Rai v. State, 2064 BS
Facts:
Sita Rai, caregiver in a rehabilitation center, neglected disabled residents, resulting in severe health deterioration.
Issue:
Can negligence and failure to provide care constitute criminal liability?
Decision:
Court held that neglect leading to harm is punishable, invoking Sections 176 and 177. Compensation to victims was also ordered.
Significance:
Confirmed criminal liability for institutional neglect, not just direct assault.
3. Hari Prasad Sharma v. Public Prosecutor, 2066 BS
Facts:
Hari Prasad Sharma was accused of exploiting disabled workers in a factory, making them work under unsafe conditions without wages.
Issue:
Does economic exploitation of disabled persons attract criminal liability?
Decision:
Court convicted the accused under Sections 176, 177, and 203 (for exploitation), emphasizing that economic abuse of disabled persons is a criminal offense.
Significance:
Expanded liability to include economic abuse and exploitation of vulnerable persons.
4. Ramesh Thapa v. Government of Nepal, 2068 BS
Facts:
Ramesh Thapa was charged with sexual harassment of a physically disabled woman.
Issue:
Does sexual abuse of disabled persons attract more severe penalties?
Decision:
The Supreme Court held that sexual abuse of disabled persons is an aggravated offense under Sections 170 and 179, imposing maximum imprisonment allowed.
Significance:
Affirmed enhanced protection against sexual abuse for disabled persons.
5. Mina Rai v. District Court, 2070 BS
Facts:
Mina Rai, a caregiver, misappropriated funds meant for disabled patients in a welfare home.
Issue:
Can financial abuse of disabled persons constitute criminal liability?
Decision:
Court convicted Mina Rai under Section 176 and 203, ordering full restitution and imprisonment.
Significance:
Clarified that financial exploitation is punishable, emphasizing protection of economic rights of disabled persons.
6. Binod Gurung v. State, 2072 BS
Facts:
Binod Gurung assaulted a visually impaired person in public transport.
Issue:
Does public abuse of disabled persons warrant strict liability?
Decision:
Court imposed aggravated sentence, considering both vulnerability and public impact, under Sections 176 and 179.
Significance:
Reinforced protection in both private and public spheres, highlighting public interest.
7. Anita Shrestha v. Government of Nepal, 2074 BS
Facts:
Anita Shrestha was found guilty of psychological abuse and verbal harassment of disabled children in a special school.
Issue:
Is verbal or psychological abuse of disabled persons criminally punishable?
Decision:
Court ruled that psychological abuse is a punishable offense under Section 177, imposing fines and counseling mandates.
Significance:
Recognized non-physical abuse as criminal, broadening the scope of protection.
🔹 Doctrinal Principles Established
Aggravated liability for abuse – higher punishment for disabled victims.
Multiple forms of abuse recognized – physical, sexual, psychological, and economic.
State and institutional accountability – negligence in care facilities is punishable.
Restitution and rehabilitation – compensation is often part of sentencing.
Public and private protection – abuse in all settings is punishable.
🔹 Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Facts | Issue | Decision | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ram Bahadur Gurung (2062 BS) | Physical assault in care facility | Aggravated liability | Convicted | Higher penalties for abuse |
| Sita Rai (2064 BS) | Neglect in rehab center | Institutional negligence | Convicted + compensation | Neglect is criminal |
| Hari Prasad Sharma (2066 BS) | Exploitation in factory | Economic abuse | Convicted | Economic abuse criminalized |
| Ramesh Thapa (2068 BS) | Sexual harassment | Sexual abuse liability | Maximum imprisonment | Enhanced protection |
| Mina Rai (2070 BS) | Misappropriation of funds | Financial abuse | Convicted + restitution | Economic rights protected |
| Binod Gurung (2072 BS) | Public assault | Public abuse liability | Aggravated sentence | Protection in public/private |
| Anita Shrestha (2074 BS) | Psychological abuse | Verbal/psychological abuse | Fines + counseling | Non-physical abuse recognized |
🔹 Conclusion
Nepalese judicial precedents clearly emphasize:
Strict criminal liability for abuse of disabled persons
Recognition of multiple forms of abuse
Aggravated penalties to reflect vulnerability
Obligations on caregivers, institutions, and the state
Restitution, rehabilitation, and public protection as part of justice
These cases collectively provide a robust framework to prosecute abuse of disabled persons and protect their rights in Nepal.
RELATED Blog
0 comments