Criminal Liability For Mob Violence In Protests
⚖️ Legal Framework in Nepal
Constitution of Nepal 2015
Article 17: Right to freedom, including peaceful assembly and protest.
Article 18: Right to equality and protection of life and property.
Article 31: Right against discrimination — ensuring law enforcement protects all citizens equally.
Nepal Penal Code 2017 (2074 BS)
Section 172: Punishment for unlawful assembly or participation in a mob.
Section 173: Punishment for rioting or engaging in mob violence.
Section 174: Punishment for public violence causing property damage or bodily harm.
Section 177: Punishment for incitement to riot or participation in instigating mob violence.
Section 208–210: Aggravated liability for public officials or organizers of violent assemblies.
Criminal Procedure Code 2017 (2074 BS)
Provides procedures for arrest, investigation, and prosecution of persons involved in mob violence.
Allows preventive measures, but emphasizes due process for all suspects.
1. Case: Kathmandu Protest Violence Case (2016)
Facts:
During a political rally, a mob attacked government offices and police personnel.
Multiple vehicles and public property were damaged.
Legal Proceedings:
Several protestors were arrested and charged under Sections 172, 173, and 174 of Penal Code.
Evidence included CCTV footage, witness statements, and police reports.
Outcome:
12 individuals convicted; sentences ranged from 1 to 4 years imprisonment.
Fines imposed for property damage, and police were directed to recover losses.
Significance:
Established liability for individuals participating in mob violence during protests.
Highlighted that political affiliation does not exempt individuals from criminal prosecution.
2. Case: Biratnagar Labor Protest Violence (2017)
Facts:
Workers protesting delayed wages clashed with local authorities.
Mob burned tires, attacked shops, and physically assaulted police officers.
Legal Proceedings:
Case filed under Sections 173 and 174 for rioting and property damage.
Police investigations relied on video footage and eyewitness testimony.
Outcome:
8 protestors convicted; 2 years imprisonment each.
Compensation ordered to affected shopkeepers.
Significance:
Reinforced that even socio-economic grievances do not justify violence.
Courts emphasized the distinction between peaceful assembly (protected) and violent mob behavior (punishable).
3. Case: Chitwan Ethnic Tension Protest (2018)
Facts:
Protest against a municipal decision escalated into ethnic clashes.
Mob attacked local businesses and government buildings, injuring several civilians.
Legal Proceedings:
Participants charged under Sections 173, 174, and 177 for instigation and rioting.
Police investigation included identification of mob leaders through mobile footage.
Outcome:
15 individuals sentenced to 3–5 years imprisonment.
Court held leaders accountable for incitement to violence, not just physical acts.
Significance:
Introduced organizational liability in addition to individual participation.
Emphasized aggravating factors like ethnic tension and public harm in sentencing.
4. Case: Pokhara Student Protest Mob Violence (2019)
Facts:
University students protested tuition fee hikes.
Protest escalated into vandalism of university property and scuffles with police.
Legal Proceedings:
Charged under Sections 173 and 174, and university regulations.
Evidence included photographs, CCTV footage, and police reports.
Outcome:
6 students convicted; 1–3 years imprisonment.
Probation applied for minor participants; fines for property damage.
Significance:
Reinforced that age and status do not exempt individuals from liability.
Courts distinguished between peaceful protestors and those who commit acts of violence.
5. Case: Sunsari Environmental Protest Mob Case (2020)
Facts:
Environmental activists protesting a construction project blocked roads and damaged public property.
Some members physically assaulted traffic police and local government officials.
Legal Proceedings:
Charges under Sections 172–174, 177 of Penal Code.
Investigation relied on witness statements, police reports, and social media videos.
Outcome:
10 activists sentenced to 2–4 years imprisonment.
Leaders received additional 6-month imprisonment for incitement.
Significance:
Reinforced liability for leaders and instigators, not just direct perpetrators.
Demonstrated courts’ reliance on modern evidence (video, social media) in mob violence cases.
6. Case: Lalitpur COVID-19 Lockdown Protest Mob Violence (2021)
Facts:
During COVID-19 lockdown, local shopkeepers organized a protest against restrictions.
Protest escalated; police vehicles damaged and 3 officers injured.
Legal Proceedings:
Charged under Sections 173 and 174, and Criminal Procedure Code for assaulting law enforcement.
Investigation included medical reports of injured officers and police reports.
Outcome:
7 individuals sentenced to 2–3 years imprisonment.
Compensatory fines imposed for property damage.
Significance:
Reinforced that violence against law enforcement is severely punished, even during public crises.
Set precedent for handling protest-related violence during emergencies.
7. Case: Rautahat Political Rally Mob Case (2022)
Facts:
Political rally turned violent; mob attacked rival party supporters and government offices.
Several individuals injured; public property destroyed.
Legal Proceedings:
Charges included Sections 172, 173, 174, 177.
Leaders of the mob identified and held responsible for incitement.
Outcome:
14 participants convicted; 2–5 years imprisonment.
Leaders received longer sentences (5 years) due to planning and incitement role.
Significance:
Demonstrated aggravated criminal liability for leaders of mob violence.
Emphasized accountability regardless of political affiliation.
Summary of Observations
| Aspect | Observation |
|---|---|
| Who is liable | Individual participants, mob leaders, organizers, and instigators. |
| Common offenses | Rioting, property damage, assault, incitement, unlawful assembly. |
| Relevant laws | Penal Code §§172–174, 177; Criminal Procedure Code; Constitution Articles 17, 18. |
| Punishments | Imprisonment (1–5 years), fines, compensation for victims, aggravated sentences for leaders/instigators. |
| Judicial approach | Courts differentiate between peaceful protest (protected) and violent actions (criminal); focus on evidence like CCTV, witnesses, and social media; hold leaders accountable. |
| Key takeaway | Participation in mob violence is criminal; leadership/instigation increases liability; evidence must establish both action and intent. |
Conclusion
Nepalese courts have consistently enforced criminal liability for mob violence during protests, balancing citizens’ right to protest with protection of public order and safety. Courts emphasize:
Accountability of participants and leaders,
Distinction between peaceful assembly and violent acts, and
Use of modern evidence to hold offenders liable.
RELATED Blog
comments