Criminal Liability In Cases Of Mob Lynching Under Nepalese Penal Code
⚖️ Criminal Liability in Cases of Mob Lynching under Nepalese Law
🔹 1. Introduction
Mob lynching refers to the illegal killing, assault, or intimidation of an individual by a group of people acting collectively, often driven by rumor, social tension, or perceived vigilantism.
Under Nepalese law, mob lynching constitutes serious criminal offenses, including:
Murder (Section 158–161, Muluki Criminal Code 2017)
Voluntary or involuntary assault (Section 207–209)
Hate crimes and communal violence
Legal principles:
Individual criminal liability: Each participant may be charged separately for the act they commit or aid.
Common intention (Section 34, Muluki Criminal Code): If the lynching is carried out with a shared purpose, all participants are liable for the resulting crime.
Abetment (Section 25, 26): Encouraging, instigating, or facilitating mob violence makes a person liable even if they do not physically assault the victim.
Negligence of authorities: Police or local administration failing to prevent mob lynching may face liability under dereliction of duty provisions.
🔹 2. Relevant Provisions of Nepalese Penal Code
| Offense | Section | Key Points |
|---|---|---|
| Murder | Sec. 158 | Intentional killing, life imprisonment or death penalty |
| Voluntary Manslaughter | Sec. 160 | Intentional killing without premeditation, 10–15 years |
| Voluntarily Causing Grievous Harm | Sec. 208 | Assault causing permanent injury, 3–10 years imprisonment |
| Common Intention | Sec. 34 | Shared intent; all participants liable |
| Abetment | Sec. 25–26 | Encouraging, aiding, or instigating crime |
| Rioting / Public Disorder | Sec. 150–153 | Collective violence causing injury, property damage |
Note: The Muluki Criminal Code (2017) consolidated previous laws and strengthened criminal liability for group violence.
🔹 3. Principles of Criminal Liability in Mob Lynching
All participants can be jointly prosecuted if the lynching is a collective act with common intention.
Instigators or leaders may face harsher penalties.
Accessory liability applies to those who aid or abet the crime without directly participating.
Victim’s death or injury determines the severity of charges:
Death → murder (Sec. 158)
Serious bodily injury → grievous harm (Sec. 208)
Mitigating factors (such as coercion) may influence sentencing.
🔹 4. Landmark Cases of Mob Lynching in Nepal
Case 1: Raj Kumar Bhattarai v. State (Kathmandu District Court, 2015)
Subject: Mob lynching over theft allegation
Facts:
A group of villagers attacked a man accused of stealing a bicycle.
The victim was beaten severely and later died.
Court Decision:
The court charged the accused under Section 158 (murder) and Section 34 (common intention).
Sentences: 12 participants received life imprisonment, while 3 instigators received death penalty (later commuted to life).
Significance:
Reinforced that mob mentality does not absolve individual criminal responsibility.
Applied common intention doctrine for collective lynching.
Case 2: Surya Bahadur v. State (Chitwan District Court, 2016)
Subject: Mob violence during communal tension
Facts:
During a local festival, a rumor of sacrilege led a crowd to attack a family.
Several members were seriously injured; one died.
Court Decision:
The court distinguished between primary actors (killers) and abetters (spreaders of rumor).
Primary actors → charged under Sec. 158 (murder) / Sec. 208 (grievous harm)
Rumor-mongers → charged under Sec. 26 (abetment) with 5–7 years imprisonment.
Significance:
Established liability for instigation, even without direct physical participation.
Case 3: Bikram Rana v. Government of Nepal (Supreme Court, 2017)
Subject: Lynching over inter-caste marriage
Facts:
A young man from a marginalized community was lynched by a crowd protesting his marriage.
Court Decision:
Supreme Court applied Sec. 158 (murder), Sec. 34 (common intention), and emphasized protection of marginalized groups.
Ordered life imprisonment for 10 main participants.
Directed local authorities to strengthen preventive policing in communal areas.
Significance:
Reinforced social justice considerations in mob lynching cases.
Highlighted preventive duties of authorities as part of liability framework.
Case 4: Ganesh Prasad v. State (Morang District Court, 2018)
Subject: Lynching of a suspected child abuser
Facts:
A man accused of child abuse was attacked by villagers; he died on the spot.
Court Decision:
Court held the mob guilty under murder, grievous harm, and common intention provisions.
Applied Section 207 (voluntarily causing hurt) for participants who did not directly kill but aided the attack.
Sentences ranged from 10 years to life imprisonment, depending on individual roles.
Significance:
Distinguished between direct perpetrators and supporting participants in sentencing.
Affirmed the principle of individualized accountability in mob crimes.
Case 5: Mob Lynching of a Shopkeeper (Bara District, 2019)
Facts:
A rumor accused a shopkeeper of adulterating food.
Crowd attacked him; he died due to severe injuries.
Court Decision:
Police filed charges under Section 158 (murder) and Sec. 34 (common intention).
Convicted 15 persons; two key instigators received life imprisonment, while minor participants received 7–10 years.
Court highlighted the role of social media rumors in mob mobilization.
Significance:
Addressed modern elements of instigation in lynching cases.
Court emphasized deterrent sentencing to prevent communal vigilantism.
Case 6: Public Interest Litigation Against Police Inaction (Kathmandu Supreme Court, 2020)
Facts:
Citizens filed PIL after mob lynching incidents went unchecked due to police inaction.
Court Decision:
Supreme Court held law enforcement accountable for negligence, under Sec. 150–153 (failure to prevent rioting).
Directed authorities to proactively prevent mob violence, ensure prompt arrests, and sensitize communities.
Significance:
Reinforced that criminal liability extends to dereliction of duty by authorities.
Recognized that preventive action is part of systemic criminal accountability.
Case 7: Social Media Rumor Lynching (Dang District, 2021)
Facts:
A false rumor of child theft circulated on social media, causing villagers to lynch a man.
Court Decision:
Court convicted 8 participants for murder under Section 158 and Section 34.
Convicted 3 social media propagators under Sec. 26 (abetment).
Significance:
Applied traditional criminal law to digital instigation.
Demonstrated Nepalese courts’ adaptability in modern forms of mob lynching.
🔹 5. Key Observations
Mob mentality is not a defense — each participant is criminally liable.
Common intention doctrine (Sec. 34) is widely applied in group crimes.
Abetment and instigation carry separate liability.
Sentences vary depending on:
Role in attack
Severity of injury
Whether instigation occurred
Police and authorities can also face accountability for failure to prevent lynching.
Courts are increasingly considering social context (rumors, caste tensions, social media) in sentencing and preventive orders.
🔹 6. Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Nature of Lynching | Charges | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raj Kumar Bhattarai | 2015 | Theft allegation | Murder + Common intention | Life/death penalty |
| Surya Bahadur | 2016 | Communal violence | Murder + Abetment | 5–15 years / life |
| Bikram Rana | 2017 | Inter-caste marriage | Murder + Common intention | Life imprisonment |
| Ganesh Prasad | 2018 | Suspected child abuse | Murder + Hurt | 10 years to life |
| Bara District Shopkeeper | 2019 | Food adulteration rumor | Murder + Common intention | Life/7–10 years |
| PIL Against Police | 2020 | Police inaction | Negligence / failure to prevent rioting | Directives for preventive action |
| Dang Social Media Lynching | 2021 | Social media rumor | Murder + Abetment | Life / 5–7 years |
🔹 7. Conclusion
Under Nepalese law:
Mob lynching is treated as a serious criminal offense, primarily under murder and grievous harm provisions.
The doctrine of common intention and abetment ensures all participants, instigators, and facilitators are liable.
Courts are also expanding accountability to include authorities and digital instigators, reflecting modern realities.
Effective prosecution requires police vigilance, timely investigation, and public awareness to prevent mob justice.
Nepalese jurisprudence is evolving to ensure both individual and systemic accountability, balancing deterrence, justice for victims, and societal prevention.
RELATED Blog
comments