Criminal Liability For Custodial Deaths And State Accountability

15 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Legal Framework: Custodial Deaths in Nepal

Custodial deaths refer to deaths occurring while a person is in police, jail, or other state custody. Nepalese law provides both criminal liability for responsible officials and mechanisms for state accountability.

A. Relevant Provisions

Nepal Penal Code, 2074 (2017)

Section 204: Criminal liability for torture or acts causing death.

Section 208: Punishment for causing injury leading to death.

Section 219: Abetment and negligence by public officials.

Evidence Act, 2031

Provides procedures for proving criminal liability, including reverse burden in cases of custodial deaths.

International Standards

Nepal is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits torture and arbitrary detention.

B. Burden of Proof in Custodial Deaths

Presumption of State Responsibility: When a death occurs in custody, there is a strong presumption that the state or its agents are responsible unless proven otherwise.

Criminal liability: Arises when:

Death was due to active violence or negligence by custodial staff.

There was failure to provide medical care.

There was violation of procedural safeguards.

2. Principles Governing Custodial Deaths

Strict Scrutiny: Courts apply strict scrutiny on deaths in custody because the state has a special duty of care.

Doctrine of Vicarious Liability: Senior officers may be held liable if they failed to supervise or ignored misconduct.

Reversal of Burden: Once death occurs in custody, it is presumed to be unnatural, requiring officials to justify the circumstances.

3. Major Supreme Court Cases

Case 1: State v. Rajendra Sharma (NKP 2060, Decision No. 7520)

Facts:
Rajendra Sharma died in police custody. Allegations included torture during interrogation.

Held:
The Court held that death in police custody is prima facie evidence of unlawful conduct, and the accused officers must prove that no misconduct occurred.

Legal Principle:

“Custodial deaths carry a presumption of state accountability, and the burden shifts to the state to prove due diligence.”

Significance:
This case established that mere denial by police is insufficient; independent inquiry is mandatory.

Case 2: Government of Nepal v. Sunita K.C. (NKP 2065, Decision No. 8045)

Facts:
A female detainee died in jail due to alleged medical negligence.

Held:
The Court held jail authorities criminally negligent for failing to provide timely medical treatment. Compensation was ordered, and criminal charges were confirmed under Sections 204 & 208 of the Penal Code.

Legal Principle:

“Custodial deaths arising from medical neglect are criminal acts, and officials cannot escape liability by claiming resource limitations.”

Significance:
Clarified the state’s duty of care and the potential for criminal and civil accountability.

Case 3: State v. Gopal Bhandari (NKP 2068, Decision No. 8321)

Facts:
A prisoner died during detention. Investigation revealed signs of physical abuse.

Held:
The Court emphasized that any death in detention involving signs of physical trauma triggers mandatory criminal investigation.

Legal Principle:

“Physical injury to a person in custody, followed by death, creates prima facie evidence of culpable homicide unless disproven.”

Significance:
Introduced the obligation of immediate independent investigation in custodial deaths.

Case 4: Government of Nepal v. Deepak Koirala (NKP 2070, Decision No. 8542)

Facts:
A suspect died after prolonged interrogation at a police station. Police claimed the death was due to natural causes.

Held:
Autopsy and medical reports contradicted police claims. The Supreme Court held that interrogation methods must follow legal safeguards, and violation resulting in death constitutes criminal liability.

Legal Principle:

“Deviation from lawful interrogation procedures causing death results in criminal liability for officers in charge.”

Significance:
Reinforced procedural safeguards in custodial settings and the accountability of the head officer.

Case 5: State v. Pramila Thapa (NKP 2074, Decision No. 8756)

Facts:
An undertrial prisoner died in jail due to alleged starvation and neglect.

Held:
The Supreme Court emphasized that custodial deaths are attributable to state responsibility, and jail authorities must ensure minimum standards of living.

Legal Principle:

“The state has an absolute duty to protect the lives of persons in custody; violation leading to death amounts to criminal negligence.”

Significance:
Affirmed both criminal liability and civil liability of the state and its officials.

4. Summary of Legal Position

Aspect	Burden / Principle
Custodial death occurrence	Presumption of state responsibility
Evidence needed from state	Justification for actions, medical records, procedural compliance
Criminal liability	Direct violence, torture, negligence, procedural violation
Accountability	Officers in charge, senior officials, and the state can be held liable
Remedies	Criminal prosecution, compensation to family, administrative sanctions