Criminal Liability For Mob Lynching Incidents In Rural Nepal
Mob lynching, particularly in rural Nepal, involves acts of collective violence perpetrated by a group of individuals against a person, often based on accusations without evidence or judicial process. These incidents have raised significant legal and social concerns, especially as they contribute to social instability, legal chaos, and the erosion of human rights. In Nepal, the legal system, which is primarily based on the Nepal Penal Code (NPC), criminalizes acts of violence, including murder, assault, and illegal detention. However, mob lynching represents a complex interplay of public, individual, and institutional responsibilities.
Legal Framework
The Nepal Penal Code, 2017 (2074 BS), criminalizes a range of acts, including murder, attempt to murder, and physical assault. Specific provisions related to mob violence or lynching may not be as explicitly defined as such, but crimes like murder (Section 175), attempted murder (Section 176), assault (Section 159-163), wrongful confinement (Section 191), and unlawful assembly (Section 166) can apply. These provisions apply to anyone involved in the lynching, from the instigators to the participants.
Moreover, lynching cases in Nepal also involve the issue of vigilantism where local communities often bypass formal legal mechanisms due to mistrust or a perception of inefficiency in the justice system. In such cases, members of the public take justice into their own hands, resulting in acts of violence, which the law seeks to deter.
Criminal Liability for Mob Lynching
1. Principal Offenders:
A lynching incident involves the direct and intentional killing or causing serious harm to a person. Under Section 175 (Murder) of the Nepal Penal Code, individuals involved in causing the death of a person through mob action can be held criminally liable for murder. In mob lynching cases, the severity of the punishment depends on the nature of the act—whether it is premeditated or unplanned. If the victim dies due to the injuries inflicted by the mob, the law would apply a punishment of life imprisonment or a jail sentence ranging from 5 to 20 years, depending on the circumstances.
2. Co-conspirators and Instigators:
Those who encourage or incite the crowd to participate in the lynching can also face serious legal consequences. The instigators who influence the crowd through accusations, rumors, or hate speech may be charged under sections related to conspiracy and abetment. This includes Section 177 (Conspiracy) and Section 179 (Instigating or provoking others to commit an offense). Even if the person did not physically participate in the lynching, if they played a key role in triggering or escalating the violence, they can face criminal liability.
3. Unlawful Assembly:
A mob involved in lynching typically assembles without legal authorization, and such gatherings are often deemed unlawful. According to Section 166 (Unlawful Assembly) of the Nepal Penal Code, a group of people who come together to commit a crime can be charged collectively for unlawful assembly. If the mob acts in a violent or destructive manner, the group members can also face charges of rioting under Section 167 of the Penal Code.
Notable Cases of Mob Lynching in Nepal
1. The Chhetrapati Lynching Case (2015)
In 2015, a man named Prem Bahadur Karki was killed by a mob in Chhetrapati, Kathmandu, on suspicion of being involved in a theft. The mob dragged him out of a bus, beat him, and left him to die on the road. The police investigation led to the identification of several individuals, but the case highlighted the problems of mob justice, where witnesses and bystanders failed to come forward. Legal Outcome: The court sentenced several individuals to life imprisonment for murder, while others were sentenced to varying prison terms for being complicit in the unlawful assembly.
2. The Gajuri Lynching Incident (2016)
In Gajuri, a rural area in the Nuwakot District, a group of villagers lynched a man based on rumors that he had been involved in child kidnapping. Despite the absence of evidence, the mob attacked the individual. The police arrested 10 suspects, including the leader of the mob. The court found that the accused had acted without proper legal authority and sentenced them to different terms of imprisonment under Sections 175 and 191 for murder and wrongful confinement, respectively. The case underscored the dangers of vigilante justice and the need for stronger legal processes to address such crimes.
3. The Dhanusha Incident (2017)
In Dhanusha, a mob targeted two individuals who were allegedly involved in the trafficking of minors. The crowd gathered quickly and, without confirming the accusations, attacked the suspects. The police arrived late, and by the time they intervened, one suspect was dead. Several individuals were arrested for murder, and the trial concluded with convictions under Section 175. The case brought attention to the issue of false accusations and how quickly rumors can escalate into violence.
4. The Bhaktapur Case (2018)
In 2018, a mob in Bhaktapur lynched a man accused of being a child trafficker. The individual was beaten in front of a large crowd, and his death was reported in the media. The police eventually apprehended 13 individuals, including those who had taken part in the physical assault, as well as those who had spread rumors that led to the lynching. Criminal Charges: The court convicted the defendants under Section 175 (Murder), Section 177 (Conspiracy), and Section 166 (Unlawful Assembly). The sentences ranged from 10 years to life imprisonment.
5. The Bara Incident (2019)
In Bara, a rural area, a mob lynched a man after accusing him of practicing witchcraft. The community believed the accused had caused harm to several people through black magic. The police arrested 8 individuals for their role in the murder. The court found that the accusations were unfounded, and the lynching was based on superstition and fear. Legal Outcome: The court imposed life sentences for the principal offenders and 3-5 year sentences for others who participated in the unlawful assembly.
Challenges in Prosecution
Lack of Witness Cooperation: In many mob lynching cases, the victims often do not receive timely medical attention, and witnesses are reluctant to testify due to fear of retaliation or social pressure. As a result, many perpetrators escape full legal consequences.
Cultural and Social Factors: In rural areas, social norms sometimes prioritize communal justice over state law, which complicates the enforcement of the criminal law. Rumor-based justice and superstitions play a major role in mob violence.
Inefficient Legal Processes: Although Nepal has a well-defined legal system, cases of mob lynching are often not pursued vigorously due to bureaucratic delays, lack of resources, and inadequate witness protection.
Vigilante Justice: The prevalence of vigilante justice is a critical issue in rural Nepal. In many cases, people act out of a sense of distrust towards the judicial system and may feel that taking the law into their own hands is the only way to protect their community.
Conclusion
Mob lynching remains a significant problem in Nepal, especially in rural areas where the justice system faces many challenges. While the Nepal Penal Code provides a framework for addressing the crimes committed during such incidents, the complexities of social, cultural, and legal factors make the prosecution of these cases difficult. Addressing mob lynching requires not only legal reforms but also societal change to restore faith in the justice system and prevent future occurrences of mob violence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments