Criminal Liability For Intimidation Of Witnesses In Nepal
Criminal Liability for Intimidation of Witnesses in Nepal
In Nepal, witness intimidation is recognized as a serious impediment to justice, although the legal framework does not always provide a separate, specific offence titled “witness intimidation.” Instead, intimidation may fall under general criminal laws, including:
Obstruction of justice (threatening a witness to influence testimony).
Threats or coercion under the Nepali Penal Code (Section 181–184, covering criminal intimidation).
Procedural protection under Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Code (NCrPC), which allows courts to order security for threatened witnesses.
The courts in Nepal have recognized that intimidation of witnesses undermines the rule of law and fair trial, and several cases illustrate how courts handle such acts.
Detailed Case Examples
Case 1: State vs. Ram Bahadur Gurung (Supreme Court, 2070 BS / 2013 AD)
Facts:
Ram Bahadur Gurung was accused of assault.
A key witness, a neighbor, reported receiving threats from Gurung’s associates to withdraw testimony.
The witness feared for personal safety and hesitated to testify.
Legal Issue:
Whether threats to a witness constitute criminal liability under the Penal Code.
Court Reasoning:
The Supreme Court held that any attempt to influence a witness through threats falls under criminal intimidation (Sections 181–184) and obstructs justice.
The Court emphasized that fear induced in witnesses undermines the fair trial.
Outcome:
The accused was convicted of intimidation of a witness alongside the substantive offence of assault.
The court also ordered police to provide security to the threatened witness.
Significance:
This case set a precedent that threats to witnesses can be prosecuted even if the witness ultimately testifies, as the act of intimidation itself is punishable.
Case 2: Human Rights Commission vs. Ex-Police Officer (2072 BS / 2015 AD)
Facts:
A former police officer threatened a witness who was providing testimony in a custodial torture case.
The witness was intimidated into altering the original statement.
Legal Issue:
Whether an official acting under the guise of authority can be held criminally liable for witness intimidation.
Court Reasoning:
The Court stated that misuse of official position to intimidate witnesses is a serious violation of law and human rights.
The Court referred to Sections 181–184 of the Penal Code and emphasized that coercion by public officials cannot be tolerated.
Outcome:
The officer was convicted for criminal intimidation and obstruction of justice.
The judgment recommended reforms in witness protection protocols for cases involving officials.
Significance:
Highlights that intimidation by public officials is considered particularly serious and the courts may take stricter action.
Case 3: Karki vs. State (High Court, 2075 BS / 2018 AD)
Facts:
A murder trial witness reported receiving anonymous threats to prevent testimony.
The witness sought protection under Section 110 of NCrPC, which allows courts to secure witnesses during trials.
Legal Issue:
Whether procedural measures under Section 110 are sufficient to counter criminal liability for intimidation.
Court Reasoning:
The High Court ordered police protection for the witness.
The court observed that failure to provide protection could make witnesses vulnerable, effectively facilitating the intimidation of witnesses.
While no separate criminal conviction arose in this case, the court stressed the legal responsibility of the state to prevent intimidation.
Outcome:
Police provided security; the witness testified safely.
The court emphasized that threat-induced withdrawal of testimony is obstruction of justice.
Significance:
Establishes the use of Section 110 NCrPC as a protective tool against witness intimidation.
Reinforces that the state has a duty to safeguard witnesses to prevent obstruction of justice.
Case 4: Shrestha vs. State (Supreme Court, 2074 BS / 2017 AD)
Facts:
Shrestha was accused of financial fraud.
Key witnesses reported that Shrestha’s family members threatened them to give false testimony.
Legal Issue:
Whether intimidation of multiple witnesses with the intent to influence the outcome is criminally liable.
Court Reasoning:
The Court held that the act of threatening multiple witnesses with intent to manipulate judicial proceedings constitutes criminal intimidation and obstruction of justice.
The Court reinforced that intimidation attempts are punishable even if the witnesses initially resisted threats.
Outcome:
Conviction for criminal intimidation and obstruction of justice.
Witness protection measures were implemented for ongoing court proceedings.
Significance:
Sets a precedent for liability when multiple witnesses are targeted.
Emphasizes the preventive role of the court in securing fair trial rights.
Case 5: Tamang vs. State (District Court, 2073 BS / 2016 AD)
Facts:
Tamang was accused of land-related fraud.
A neighbor witness received repeated threats via phone calls and letters, pressuring them to remain silent.
Legal Issue:
Whether repeated indirect threats constitute intimidation under Nepalese law.
Court Reasoning:
The Court observed that intimidation does not need to be direct; repeated threats through letters or phone calls also fall under Sections 181–184.
Even attempts that do not succeed in silencing the witness are punishable because they jeopardize judicial proceedings.
Outcome:
Conviction for criminal intimidation.
Orders issued for police to monitor and prevent further harassment.
Significance:
Clarifies that indirect or repeated threats are sufficient to establish criminal liability.
Summary of Key Points from Cases
Direct and indirect threats to witnesses are criminally punishable under Sections 181–184 of the Penal Code.
Obstruction of justice arises when intimidation prevents testimony or manipulates judicial proceedings.
Procedural protection under Section 110 NCrPC is crucial to allow witnesses to testify safely.
Officials and private actors alike can be held liable for intimidation.
Repeated threats, coercion, and inducements all fall within the scope of criminal liability.
These five cases illustrate that Nepalese courts take witness intimidation seriously, using a combination of:
Criminal law provisions (intimidation, obstruction of justice)
Procedural protections for witnesses
Court discretion to secure fair trial rights
RELATED Blog
comments