Evidentiary Use Of Electronic Surveillance In Nepalese Trials

16 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Concept and Legal Framework

Electronic surveillance refers to monitoring, recording, or interception of communications using electronic devices such as phones, cameras, or digital networks. In Nepal, such surveillance is increasingly used in criminal investigations, but its evidentiary use in court requires compliance with legal standards.

Relevant Legal Provisions

Muluki Criminal Code, 2017

Section 68–72: Regulates interception of communications for criminal investigation.

Sections 90–95: Admissibility of electronic evidence in trials.

Evidence must be collected legally.

Must preserve authenticity and ensure chain of custody.

Electronic Transactions Act, 2006

Provides recognition for electronic records, emails, digital signatures, and recordings in judicial proceedings.

Constitutional Safeguards

Article 28 (Right to Privacy) and Article 17 (Freedom of Expression) must be respected.

Surveillance without proper legal authorization may violate constitutional rights.

2. Case Analyses

Case 1: State vs. Ramesh Thapa (Kathmandu, 2016)

Facts: Ramesh was suspected of cyber fraud and communications were intercepted with court authorization.

Legal Issue: Whether intercepted emails and chats were admissible in trial.

Court Findings: Evidence obtained with proper authorization and maintained chain of custody was admitted.

Outcome: Convicted; electronic communications used as primary evidence.

Observation: Court emphasized legal authorization and integrity of evidence.

Case 2: State vs. Sunita Sharma (Pokhara, 2017)

Facts: Sunita allegedly planned a robbery; phone calls were intercepted.

Legal Issue: Admissibility of audio surveillance as evidence.

Court Findings: Audio recordings admissible since:

Authorization obtained from competent authority.

Recordings were unaltered and verified by experts.

Outcome: Convicted; intercepted calls were central to establishing intent.

Observation: Expert verification strengthens admissibility of electronic evidence.

Case 3: State vs. Krishna Adhikari (Chitwan, 2018)

Facts: Krishna involved in drug trafficking; WhatsApp chats seized by cybercrime unit.

Legal Issue: Whether electronic chats without explicit consent could be used.

Court Findings: Evidence admissible since seizure followed court order and Electronic Transactions Act procedures.

Outcome: Convicted; chats proved coordination of drug transactions.

Observation: Court approval is key for electronic surveillance on private communications.

Case 4: State vs. Raju Lama & Associates (Jhapa, 2019)

Facts: Group suspected of organized theft; CCTV footage from public and private cameras collected.

Legal Issue: Admissibility of video surveillance from private premises.

Court Findings:

Public CCTV footage admissible.

Private CCTV footage admissible only with owner consent or court order.

Outcome: Convicted; combined electronic evidence (CCTV + call logs) proved conspiracy.

Observation: Consent and authorization critical for private surveillance.

Case 5: State vs. Binod KC (Kathmandu, 2020)

Facts: Binod involved in financial fraud; bank transaction data intercepted electronically.

Legal Issue: Use of electronic banking records as evidence.

Court Findings: Banking data obtained via legal procedures (court order to the bank) admissible.

Outcome: Convicted; electronic bank records formed key part of evidence.

Observation: Electronic records from third parties require legal procedural compliance.

Case 6: State vs. Sabina Thapa (Lalitpur, 2021)

Facts: Sabina accused of threatening public officials; emails and social media messages collected.

Legal Issue: Admissibility and reliability of electronic messages.

Court Findings: Verified logs, metadata, and expert testimony confirmed authenticity.

Outcome: Convicted; electronic messages proved intent and threat.

Observation: Metadata and forensic verification are essential to confirm authenticity.

Case 7: State vs. Prakash Gurung (Butwal, 2022)

Facts: Prakash involved in cyber harassment; authorities intercepted mobile and internet traffic.

Legal Issue: Whether intercepted digital data can be used against him.

Court Findings: Court held:

Data obtained without warrant not admissible.

Data obtained following court authorization admissible.

Outcome: Convicted; non-compliant data excluded.

Observation: Illegally obtained electronic evidence is inadmissible, reflecting constitutional safeguards.

3. Key Legal Principles from Cases

Authorization

Surveillance must be authorized by law or court order.

Unauthorized interception violates privacy rights.

Authentication

Electronic evidence must be authenticated, e.g., verified metadata, chain of custody, expert testimony.

Scope

Only relevant electronic evidence admissible.

Overbroad surveillance may be struck down.

Third-Party Data

Data from banks, ISPs, or private entities requires legal procedures for admissibility.

Exclusionary Rule

Evidence obtained illegally (without warrant or authorization) cannot be used in trial.

4. Summary Table of Cases

Case	Year	Evidence Type	Legal Issue	Outcome	Observation
State vs. Ramesh Thapa	2016	Emails, chats	Authorization & admissibility	Convicted	Legal authorization essential
State vs. Sunita Sharma	2017	Phone call recordings	Audio surveillance admissibility	Convicted	Expert verification strengthens evidence
State vs. Krishna Adhikari	2018	WhatsApp chats	Consent & court order	Convicted	Court order required for private communications
State vs. Raju Lama	2019	CCTV footage	Private vs public surveillance	Convicted	Private CCTV needs consent/court order
State vs. Binod KC	2020	Bank records	Electronic record admissibility	Convicted	Legal procedural compliance mandatory
State vs. Sabina Thapa	2021	Emails, social media messages	Authenticity & metadata	Convicted	Forensic verification crucial
State vs. Prakash Gurung	2022	Mobile & internet data	Illegal interception	Partial conviction	Illegally obtained evidence inadmissible