Prosecution Of Violent Crimes In Election Rallies
1. Legal Framework in Nepal
Violent crimes during election rallies are considered serious offenses due to their impact on public order, democracy, and voter safety. They are primarily governed under:
a) Muluki Criminal Code Act, 2074 (2017)
Section 171: Punishment for unlawful assembly and violent disruption of public gatherings.
Section 177: Assault, grievous hurt, and bodily injury with intent to intimidate voters or political rivals.
Section 178: Murder, attempted murder, or grievous bodily harm in public gatherings.
Section 185: Rioting with weapons or causing public panic.
Section 187: Conspiracy to commit violent acts during public events.
b) Election-Related Laws
Representation of the People Act, 2072 (2015): Addresses illegal intimidation, assault, and obstruction of candidates or voters.
Local Election Act, 2074: Section 85 prohibits acts of violence that disrupt electoral campaigns, including rallies.
c) Principles
Political leaders, party workers, and organizers can be held criminally liable for direct or indirect acts of violence.
Aggravated punishment applies if the acts involve firearms, explosives, or result in serious injury or death.
2. Case Law Analysis
🧩 Case 1: State v. Ram Kumar Adhikari (NKP 2075, 2018)
Facts:
During a local election rally in Kathmandu, Ram Kumar Adhikari, a party worker, attacked a rival candidate’s supporters with sticks and knives, causing multiple injuries.
Legal Issue:
Whether assault during an election rally constitutes a violation of both the Criminal Code and the Election Act.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that intentional assault to intimidate voters or rival supporters falls under Sections 177 and 185 of the Criminal Code and Section 85 of the Local Election Act.
The act was aggravated due to the public and political nature of the gathering.
Outcome:
7 years imprisonment.
Fine imposed for medical expenses of victims.
Significance:
Established that violence at rallies is treated more severely than ordinary assault, due to its potential impact on public order and the electoral process.
🧩 Case 2: State v. Sita Magar & Ors (NKP 2076, 2019)
Facts:
Sita Magar and a group of party workers were involved in stone-pelting and property destruction at an election rally in Pokhara. Several vehicles and stalls were damaged.
Issue:
Liability of organizers for the violent acts of participants.
Judgment:
Court ruled that rally organizers can be held liable if they incite or fail to prevent violence, even if they do not personally commit the acts (Section 187, Criminal Code).
Evidence included witness testimony and video footage showing rally leaders urging supporters to "teach a lesson" to rivals.
Outcome:
Organizers: 5 years imprisonment.
Direct perpetrators: 6–8 years imprisonment.
Compensation for damaged property ordered.
Significance:
Affirmed vicarious liability of political organizers in election-related violence.
🧩 Case 3: State v. Bishnu Prasad Dhakal (NKP 2077, 2020)
Facts:
During a parliamentary election rally in Chitwan, Bishnu Prasad Dhakal fired a firearm into the air to disperse opponents, injuring three people.
Issue:
Criminal liability for using firearms in public during political events.
Judgment:
Court held that discharge of firearms at rallies constitutes armed intimidation, attempted murder, and public endangerment under Sections 178 and 185.
The act was aggravated because it occurred in a densely crowded public event.
Outcome:
10 years imprisonment.
Confiscation of firearm.
Significance:
Set a precedent that use of weapons in political gatherings attracts maximum penalties, reflecting the risk to public safety.
🧩 Case 4: State v. Ramila Koirala & Party Workers (NKP 2078, 2021)
Facts:
During a local election campaign in Biratnagar, Ramila Koirala’s supporters attacked journalists covering a rival rally, damaging equipment and causing injury.
Issue:
Criminal liability for assault on media personnel at political events.
Judgment:
Court emphasized that attacks on journalists or observers are considered aggravated violence, given the role of media in democracy.
Conviction under Sections 177, 185, and 187 of the Criminal Code.
Outcome:
Organizers: 6 years imprisonment.
Direct perpetrators: 7–8 years imprisonment.
Compensation for journalists’ injuries and damaged equipment.
Significance:
Confirmed that election violence affecting neutral parties (media, voters) is punished more severely.
🧩 Case 5: State v. Hari Bahadur Thapa (NKP 2079, 2022)
Facts:
Hari Bahadur Thapa led a mob during a rally in Lalitpur, attacking rival party supporters and setting fire to campaign banners and stalls.
Issue:
Whether arson during election rallies qualifies as violent crime under electoral and criminal law.
Judgment:
Court found the acts to constitute rioting, arson, and intimidation of voters under Sections 171 and 185, along with the Election Act provisions on disruption of campaigns.
Severity enhanced due to destruction of public property and threat to life.
Outcome:
9 years imprisonment.
Full restitution for damaged property.
Significance:
Reinforced that property damage in election-related violence is treated alongside personal injury in sentencing.
🧩 Case 6: State v. Shanti Rai (NKP 2080, 2023)
Facts:
During a provincial election rally in Jhapa, Shanti Rai was accused of organizing intimidation squads that threatened voters to support her party.
Issue:
Liability for intimidation and coercion of voters during rallies.
Judgment:
The court ruled that threats, coercion, and formation of intimidation squads are punishable under Sections 171 and 187, and violate the Representation of the People Act.
Evidence included testimonies of threatened voters and intercepted communications planning intimidation.
Outcome:
8 years imprisonment.
Prohibition from contesting elections for 10 years.
Significance:
Established that intimidation of voters at rallies is treated as a serious criminal offense with long-term electoral consequences.
3. Key Principles Derived
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Organizer Liability | Rally organizers can be held criminally liable for violence incited or tolerated. |
| Weapon Use Aggravates Penalty | Firearms, knives, or explosives increase severity of punishment. |
| Protection of Neutral Parties | Assault on journalists, voters, and election observers attracts aggravated sentences. |
| Property Damage Counts | Arson and destruction of campaign property is punishable alongside personal injury. |
| Voter Intimidation is Criminal | Coercion or threats aimed at influencing voters are prosecutable. |
| Joint Liability | Participants in mob violence are jointly liable under Sections 171–187. |
4. Conclusion
Nepalese courts treat violent crimes in election rallies as aggravated offenses due to their impact on democracy, public safety, and voter rights. The case law illustrates that:
Intentional physical assault, firearm use, and mob violence attract significant imprisonment.
Organizers, supporters, and facilitators are all criminally liable.
Election-specific laws work alongside general criminal provisions to ensure accountability.
Restitution and prohibitions supplement prison sentences to deter future offenses.
These rulings collectively aim to safeguard democratic processes while ensuring accountability for violent acts during political campaigns.
RELATED Blog
comments