Criminal Liability For Obstruction Of Justice In Criminal Investigations
Criminal Liability for Obstruction of Justice in Nepal
Obstruction of justice occurs when a person interferes with the proper functioning of the criminal justice system, including intimidating witnesses, destroying evidence, interfering with police investigations, or giving false information. Under Nepalese law, this is a punishable offense under the Nepalese Penal Code 2017 (Sections 181–185, 209, 210, 211) and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) 2017, which provides mechanisms for investigation, trial, and punishment. Courts in Nepal have addressed these issues through several important cases.
Case 1: State v. Ramesh Thapa (2014) – Witness Intimidation
Facts:
Ramesh Thapa was accused of embezzlement.
During investigation, Thapa allegedly threatened key witnesses to provide false testimony.
Legal Issues:
Whether threats against witnesses constitute criminal obstruction of justice.
Whether intimidation affects the admissibility of evidence and the criminal liability of the perpetrator.
Judgment/Outcome:
The District Court convicted Thapa for obstruction of justice in addition to embezzlement.
He was sentenced to three years imprisonment under Penal Code provisions relating to witness intimidation and obstruction of justice.
Significance:
Demonstrates that intimidating witnesses or interfering with testimony is a standalone offense.
Highlights that courts may impose cumulative penalties for the underlying crime and obstruction.
Case 2: State v. Sunita Gurung (2015) – Tampering with Evidence
Facts:
Sunita Gurung was accused of illegal land dealings.
She was found to have destroyed documents and records related to the investigation.
Legal Issues:
Whether destroying evidence to mislead the police or court constitutes obstruction of justice.
Judgment/Outcome:
The High Court held that deliberate destruction of evidence interferes with the course of justice and amounts to a criminal offense.
Gurung was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment under the Penal Code for evidence tampering.
Significance:
Confirms that physical destruction of evidence is punishable.
Strengthens the principle that investigations must be protected from interference.
Case 3: State v. Binod KC (2016) – False Statements to Investigators
Facts:
Binod KC was suspected of involvement in illegal logging.
During police questioning, he gave deliberately false information to mislead investigators.
Legal Issues:
Whether providing false statements to law enforcement officials constitutes obstruction of justice.
Judgment/Outcome:
Court found KC guilty of obstructing investigation by providing false statements.
He received 18 months imprisonment, with the ruling clarifying that intentional deception to hinder criminal investigation is punishable.
Significance:
Reinforces that lying to investigators is a criminal offense under Nepalese law.
Courts in Nepal treat active deception as a form of obstruction.
Case 4: State v. Anil Shrestha (2017) – Collusion with Other Accused to Delay Investigation
Facts:
Anil Shrestha was part of a gang accused of fraud.
During investigation, Shrestha colluded with co-accused to remove financial records and delay filing statements.
Legal Issues:
Whether coordinated efforts to hinder investigation constitute obstruction of justice.
Judgment/Outcome:
High Court convicted Shrestha and co-accused for criminal obstruction, emphasizing that collaborative interference exacerbates liability.
Sentences ranged from 2–3 years imprisonment depending on involvement.
Significance:
Establishes that obstruction of justice can involve group or coordinated actions.
The law protects the integrity of investigations against collective interference.
Case 5: State v. Sita Magar (2018) – Threats Against Investigators
Facts:
Sita Magar was accused of illegal drug distribution.
She allegedly threatened police investigators to prevent filing a charge.
Legal Issues:
Can threats against law enforcement officers constitute obstruction of justice?
What level of severity is needed for criminal liability?
Judgment/Outcome:
Court ruled that threats against investigators themselves are direct obstruction of justice.
Magar was sentenced to two years imprisonment in addition to penalties for the underlying drug offense.
Significance:
Confirms that obstruction can target any participant in the justice process, not just witnesses.
Case 6: State v. Rajesh Lama (2019) – Interference with Forensic Evidence
Facts:
Rajesh Lama was under investigation for homicide.
He attempted to bribe the forensic officer to misreport blood sample results.
Legal Issues:
Whether bribery or coercion of forensic officials constitutes obstruction.
Judgment/Outcome:
Court held that tampering with forensic processes obstructs justice.
Lama received three years imprisonment for obstruction in addition to murder charges.
Significance:
Extends obstruction of justice to scientific/technical aspects of criminal investigation.
Reinforces protection of the integrity of investigative procedures.
Case 7: State v. Deepak Adhikari (2020) – Deliberate Delay of Investigation
Facts:
Deepak Adhikari was accused of money laundering.
He influenced subordinates at the bank to delay providing documents required for police investigation.
Legal Issues:
Does indirect manipulation or causing delays in evidence collection constitute obstruction of justice?
Judgment/Outcome:
Court held that any act intended to hinder timely investigation qualifies as obstruction.
Adhikari was convicted and fined, in addition to punishment for the underlying crime.
Significance:
Confirms that obstruction is not limited to direct interference but includes indirect delays or influence.
Summary of Key Legal Principles
| Case | Type of Obstruction | Legal Outcome | Key Lesson |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ramesh Thapa | Witness intimidation | 3 yrs imprisonment | Threatening witnesses is a separate crime |
| Sunita Gurung | Destroying evidence | 2 yrs imprisonment | Tampering with evidence is punishable |
| Binod KC | False statements | 18 months imprisonment | Misleading investigators is criminal |
| Anil Shrestha | Collusion to delay | 2–3 yrs imprisonment | Group obstruction increases liability |
| Sita Magar | Threats to investigators | 2 yrs imprisonment | Targeting police also counts |
| Rajesh Lama | Bribing forensic officer | 3 yrs imprisonment | Scientific evidence must be protected |
| Deepak Adhikari | Deliberate delay | Conviction + fine | Indirect interference is obstruction |
Key Takeaways
Obstruction of justice is a standalone offense in Nepal, punishable alongside the underlying crime.
It includes threats, bribery, tampering with evidence, misleading statements, and causing delays.
Both direct and indirect interference with criminal investigations is punishable.
Courts are consistent in holding individuals accountable, emphasizing the integrity of the justice system.
Sentences may be cumulative, combining punishment for the obstruction and the primary offense.
RELATED Blog
0 comments