Criminal Liability Of Corporations Under Nepalese Penal Code
1. Introduction
Confessional statements are often pivotal in criminal prosecutions. However, their admissibility becomes highly contentious when there are allegations of torture, coercion, or involuntary extraction. Nepalese law seeks to balance state interest in prosecution with protection of fundamental rights.
Key Legal Provisions
Constitution of Nepal 2015
Article 22: Protects the right against self-incrimination.
Article 24: Prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
Nepal Criminal Procedure Code, 2074 (2017)
Section 114: Confessions must be voluntarily given to be admissible.
Confessions obtained under duress, coercion, or torture are inadmissible.
Nepal Penal Code, 2074 (2017)
Section 10 and 11 criminalize torture and abuse by authorities.
International Obligations
Nepal is a signatory to UNCAT (Convention Against Torture), obligating the state to prevent torture and exclude evidence obtained thereby.
2. Legal Principles on Confessional Statements and Torture
Nepalese courts apply the following principles:
Voluntariness: Confessions must be voluntary, free from intimidation, threat, or inducement.
Corroboration: Courts often require corroboration of confessional statements before conviction.
Exclusionary Rule: Confessions obtained under torture or coercion are inadmissible in evidence.
State Accountability: Law enforcement officers may be held criminally liable if torture occurs.
3. Landmark Case Laws
Case 1: State v. Ram Kumar Shrestha (2001)
Facts:
Ram Kumar Shrestha was accused of theft. He made a confessional statement after being allegedly beaten by police.
Legal Issue:
Whether a confession obtained under alleged torture is admissible.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that:
Confessions must be voluntary.
Allegations of torture were credible, so the confession was inadmissible.
Conviction could not rely solely on the confession.
Significance:
Affirmed the principle of voluntariness.
Set a precedent for judicial scrutiny of confessions in light of torture allegations.
Case 2: Gopal Thapa v. State (2005)
Facts:
Gopal Thapa was accused of fraud and allegedly confessed after being confined in harsh conditions.
Legal Issue:
Can a confession made under custodial pressure be admitted?
Judgment:
The Court held:
Physical abuse or mental pressure invalidates a confession.
Evidence obtained via coercion cannot be used in court.
Significance:
Reinforced the exclusionary rule for coerced confessions.
Introduced mental coercion as a basis for inadmissibility, not only physical torture.
Case 3: State v. Bishnu Prasad Sharma (2008)
Facts:
Bishnu Prasad Sharma was accused of murder. He confessed while in police custody, but alleged he was threatened with severe consequences if he did not confess.
Legal Issue:
Are threats sufficient to render a confession involuntary?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled:
Confessions obtained under threats, intimidation, or fear of harm are involuntary.
Confession was excluded from evidence.
Conviction required independent corroborative evidence.
Significance:
Expanded the definition of coercion beyond physical torture.
Emphasized the necessity of corroboration for convictions based on confessions.
Case 4: Rajendra KC v. State (2012)
Facts:
Rajendra KC was accused of a financial crime and claimed his confessional statement was extracted after prolonged interrogation without legal counsel, including denial of food and rest.
Legal Issue:
Does denial of basic rights during interrogation make a confession inadmissible?
Judgment:
The Court held:
Deprivation of basic needs and rights constitutes psychological torture.
Confession obtained under such conditions is inadmissible.
Law enforcement must respect procedural safeguards.
Significance:
Recognized psychological and procedural coercion as forms of torture.
Strengthened legal safeguards during interrogation.
Case 5: Sunil Thapa v. State (2016)
Facts:
Sunil Thapa confessed to a robbery after being reportedly beaten and threatened with long-term imprisonment by police officers.
Legal Issue:
Can a confession obtained during torture be partially relied upon if corroborated?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled no portion of a coerced confession is admissible.
Independent evidence is necessary to secure conviction.
Police officers involved were investigated for torture.
Significance:
Affirmed the total exclusion of coerced confessions.
Reinforced accountability of law enforcement.
Case 6: Ramesh Adhikari v. State (2019)
Facts:
Ramesh Adhikari confessed to a criminal act in police custody but claimed the confession was extracted under threats and prolonged detention.
Legal Issue:
How should courts determine whether a confession is voluntary?
Judgment:
The Court outlined a two-step test:
Whether the confession was made without inducement, threat, or coercion.
Whether there is independent evidence corroborating the confession.
Confession was inadmissible, and conviction was based on independent evidence.
Significance:
Established judicial methodology for assessing voluntariness.
Reinforced human rights protections in criminal procedure.
4. Key Jurisprudential Themes
From these cases, the following principles emerge:
Voluntariness is non-negotiable – confessions obtained under torture, threat, or psychological pressure are inadmissible.
Corroboration is essential – no conviction can rely solely on a confession when coercion is alleged.
Total exclusion rule – partial reliance on coerced confessions is generally rejected.
Police accountability – officers may face criminal consequences for torture.
Psychological and procedural coercion are treated as seriously as physical torture.
Judicial scrutiny is mandatory – courts carefully examine circumstances of confession.
5. Conclusion
Nepalese jurisprudence demonstrates a strong commitment to human rights in criminal proceedings. Confessional statements, while important, cannot override constitutional protections against torture and coercion. Courts consistently:
Exclude coerced confessions,
Require corroborative evidence,
Hold law enforcement accountable.
Cases like Ram Kumar Shrestha, Bishnu Prasad Sharma, and Sunil Thapa have solidified the principle that justice cannot be achieved through torture, balancing the state’s interest in prosecution with individual rights.
RELATED Blog
comments