Prosecutorial Misconduct In Nepal
Prosecutorial Misconduct in Nepal
Prosecutorial misconduct refers to improper or illegal acts by prosecutors during the investigation, filing, or trial of criminal cases. In Nepal, misconduct may include withholding evidence, filing frivolous charges, misusing power, pressuring witnesses, or failing to follow due process. Nepalese courts have occasionally addressed such misconduct in their judgments, highlighting the importance of fairness and the rule of law.
Case 1: State v. Bimal Lama (2012) – Fabricated Evidence Allegation
Facts:
Bimal Lama was accused of theft in Lalitpur.
During trial, the defense argued that the prosecutor presented fabricated witness statements and withheld material evidence favorable to the accused.
Legal Framework:
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 2017: Sections on disclosure of evidence and fair trial obligations.
Constitution of Nepal, 2015: Article 12 guarantees the right to a fair trial.
Judgment/Outcome:
The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to provide critical evidence requested by the defense.
The court acquitted Bimal Lama, noting that prosecutorial misconduct had impaired the fairness of the trial.
Significance:
Reinforces that withholding evidence is a violation of due process.
Courts in Nepal can overturn convictions if prosecutorial misconduct prejudices the accused.
Case 2: State v. Ramesh Khadka (2015) – Selective Prosecution
Facts:
Khadka was charged with corruption, while co-accused in similar positions were not prosecuted.
Allegations arose that the prosecutor selectively targeted Khadka due to political bias.
Legal Framework:
Article 18 of the Constitution: Right to equality before the law.
CrPC provisions regarding impartial prosecution.
Judgment/Outcome:
Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution acted arbitrarily.
Case was dismissed, and the court emphasized that selective prosecution undermines the rule of law.
Significance:
Established judicial scrutiny over discriminatory practices by prosecutors.
Clarified that political motivations in prosecution violate constitutional rights.
Case 3: State v. Anil Shrestha (2017) – Misleading the Court
Facts:
Prosecutor allegedly presented misleading forensic reports in a murder case.
Defense challenged the authenticity and argued that the prosecution knowingly misled the court.
Legal Framework:
CrPC Section 92: Prohibits knowingly providing false information to the court.
Penal Code provisions on obstruction of justice and falsification.
Judgment/Outcome:
High Court found that the forensic report had errors knowingly introduced by the prosecution.
Case was retried, and the prosecutor was warned for professional misconduct.
Significance:
First instance in Nepal where courts formally reprimanded prosecutors for misleading information.
Strengthened accountability of state legal officers.
Case 4: State v. Sita Gurung (2018) – Failure to Disclose Witness Statements
Facts:
Gurung was charged with embezzlement.
Prosecutor failed to disclose exculpatory witness statements that could have helped the defense.
Legal Framework:
CrPC provisions on disclosure of evidence to the defense.
International human rights principles under Nepalese law (fair trial).
Judgment/Outcome:
District Court quashed the charges due to prosecutorial failure in disclosure.
The Supreme Court upheld the principle that non-disclosure is per se misconduct affecting the right to a fair trial.
Significance:
Strengthened the duty of prosecutors to share all relevant evidence.
Confirmed that misconduct in evidence disclosure can lead to case dismissal.
Case 5: State v. Raju Thapa (2020) – Intimidation of Witnesses
Facts:
Raju Thapa was accused of financial fraud.
It was found that prosecutors pressured witnesses to give statements against Thapa, sometimes coercing them through threats.
Legal Framework:
Penal Code: Witness intimidation is a criminal offense.
CrPC: Prosecutors must not use coercion to obtain statements.
Judgment/Outcome:
High Court declared the obtained witness statements inadmissible.
Prosecutors were formally warned and transferred; case remanded for reinvestigation.
Significance:
Highlighted the judiciary’s role in checking prosecutorial overreach.
Emphasized witness protection as a key aspect of fair trials.
Case 6: State v. Binod KC (2021) – Abuse of Discretion
Facts:
Binod KC was charged with illegal logging.
Prosecutor filed multiple frivolous charges without sufficient evidence, arguably to prolong detention.
Legal Framework:
CrPC: Prosecutors must exercise discretion reasonably.
Constitution: Right to liberty (Article 18).
Judgment/Outcome:
Supreme Court criticized the prosecutor for abuse of discretion.
Unfounded charges were dropped; KC was released.
Significance:
Reinforced that prosecutorial discretion must not be used to harass citizens.
Courts can intervene when misuse of prosecutorial power is evident.
Case 7: State v. Rina Magar (2022) – Delay in Filing Charges
Facts:
Rina Magar was accused of theft.
Prosecutor delayed filing charges by several months, affecting her right to a speedy trial.
Legal Framework:
CrPC: Section 11 on timely prosecution.
Constitution: Article 12 (Right to speedy trial).
Judgment/Outcome:
Court quashed the case, noting prosecutorial delay constituted misconduct affecting fundamental rights.
Significance:
Affirmed that even administrative delays by prosecutors can violate constitutional rights.
Emphasized the right to timely justice in Nepalese jurisprudence.
Summary of Key Patterns in Prosecutorial Misconduct Cases in Nepal
| Case | Type of Misconduct | Legal Outcome | Key Lesson |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bimal Lama | Withholding evidence | Acquittal | Due process violation |
| Ramesh Khadka | Selective prosecution | Case dismissed | Equality before law |
| Anil Shrestha | Misleading court | Retried; warning | Prosecutors accountable for false info |
| Sita Gurung | Failure to disclose evidence | Charges quashed | Mandatory disclosure |
| Raju Thapa | Witness intimidation | Statements inadmissible | Witness protection |
| Binod KC | Abuse of discretion | Charges dropped | Discretion not for harassment |
| Rina Magar | Delay in filing charges | Case quashed | Right to speedy trial |
Key Takeaways:
Nepalese courts actively protect fair trial rights against prosecutorial overreach.
Misconduct ranges from withholding evidence to intimidation and abuse of discretion.
Courts may acquit, dismiss, or remand cases where prosecutorial misconduct violates constitutional or legal standards.
Prosecutorial accountability is increasingly emphasized in Nepal’s judiciary, balancing state power and individual rights.
RELATED Blog
comments