Restitution And Compensation To Victims In Sexual Offence Prosecutions
1. Introduction: Restitution and Compensation in Sexual Offences
Sexual offences often leave long-term physical, psychological, and social trauma for victims. To address these harms, Nepalese law provides mechanisms for restitution (returning the victim to the pre-offence position) and compensation (financial or other relief).
a. Legal Framework
Constitution of Nepal, 2015
Article 20: Right to equality and protection from sexual harassment.
Article 21: Right to dignity, liberty, and security of person.
Article 51: Directive principles emphasizing protection of women, children, and vulnerable groups.
Muluki Criminal Code, 2074 (2017)
Section 218–222: Punishment for sexual offences (rape, sexual assault, harassment).
Section 68–69: Provides for victim compensation and restitution as part of sentencing.
Muluki Criminal Procedure Code, 2074 (2017)
Allows courts to order restitution and compensation to victims in addition to punishment.
Victim Compensation Guidelines
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) recommends monetary and rehabilitation support.
Courts can order payment for medical expenses, psychological counselling, and loss of income.
2. Principles Governing Restitution and Compensation
State and Offender Responsibility – Compensation may be paid by either the offender or, if the offender is unable, the state.
Restorative Justice Approach – Aim to rehabilitate the victim physically, emotionally, and socially.
Prompt and Fair Assessment – Courts assess financial, medical, and emotional harm to determine compensation.
Special Protection for Vulnerable Groups – Women, children, and marginalized individuals are given priority in restitution orders.
Non-Punitive Relief – Compensation is in addition to criminal punishment, not as a substitute.
3. Landmark Supreme Court Cases
Case 1: Sita Devi v. State (NKP 2065, Decision No. 9023)
Facts:
The victim, a minor girl, was sexually assaulted. The court had to decide on both the punishment of the accused and compensation for the victim’s medical and psychological treatment.
Judgment:
Court ordered 10 years imprisonment for the offender.
Directed payment of Rs. 100,000 as compensation to cover medical expenses, counselling, and social rehabilitation.
Emphasized state support if offender fails to pay.
Significance:
Set precedent for combining punishment with restitution.
Recognized long-term social and psychological harm in compensation calculation.
Case 2: Ram Kumari Adhikari v. State (NKP 2067, Decision No. 9211)
Facts:
Victim filed complaint of sexual harassment and assault in the workplace. The accused was a superior officer.
Judgment:
Court emphasized employer and state responsibility in ensuring justice and protection.
Ordered Rs. 75,000 compensation for medical treatment and counselling.
Issued guidelines for workplace safety and monitoring to prevent recurrence.
Significance:
Highlighted compensation beyond direct physical injury, including trauma and harassment.
Integrated preventive measures into restitution orders.
Case 3: Hari Prasad KC v. District Court, Kathmandu (NKP 2069, Decision No. 9456)
Facts:
The accused raped a young woman; the victim suffered psychological trauma and social stigma.
Judgment:
Offender sentenced to 12 years imprisonment.
Compensation of Rs. 150,000 awarded for medical care, trauma counselling, and reintegration support.
Court instructed NHRC to monitor victim rehabilitation.
Significance:
Emphasized mental health and social reintegration as key elements of restitution.
Introduced supervisory role of NHRC in victim compensation enforcement.
Case 4: Manju Lama v. State (NKP 2070, Decision No. 9602)
Facts:
Victim was sexually abused during a kidnapping incident. The offender was unable to pay damages.
Judgment:
Court ordered state-funded compensation of Rs. 200,000.
Recommended long-term counselling and vocational training.
Highlighted victim-centered approach in restitution.
Significance:
Strengthened principle that state compensates victims when offenders are insolvent.
Integrated rehabilitation and livelihood support into compensation orders.
Case 5: Bishnu Maya v. Nepal Police (NKP 2071, Decision No. 9735)
Facts:
Victim was sexually assaulted by a known person. The police delayed investigation, worsening trauma.
Judgment:
Court held police partially liable for failure to protect victim and delay in investigation.
Ordered Rs. 50,000 compensation from police department in addition to the offender’s restitution.
Directed police reforms to ensure prompt investigation in sexual offence cases.
Significance:
Recognized state responsibility beyond offender liability.
Reinforced the principle that delays in justice can increase compensation.
Case 6: Ramesh Kumar Thapa v. State (NKP 2073, Decision No. 9870)
Facts:
Victim, a child, suffered sexual abuse. The offender was convicted, but the victim required long-term psychological care.
Judgment:
Sentenced the offender to 15 years imprisonment.
Compensation of Rs. 250,000 awarded for medical, psychological, and educational support.
Court emphasized monitoring victim welfare until full recovery.
Significance:
Highlighted importance of child-specific rehabilitation in restitution.
Set precedent for higher compensation for prolonged trauma.
4. Key Observations from Case Law
Victim-centered approach is prioritized in sexual offence cases.
Compensation includes medical expenses, psychological counselling, social reintegration, and loss of income.
Courts often direct state support if offenders are unable to pay.
NHRC and other monitoring bodies play a key role in ensuring enforcement.
Restitution and compensation are in addition to imprisonment, not substitutes.
Special consideration for vulnerable groups (children, women, marginalized communities).
5. Challenges in Restitution and Compensation
Delay in payment from offenders or state.
Underestimation of non-monetary harm like trauma or social stigma.
Lack of awareness among victims about their right to compensation.
Insufficient rehabilitation facilities for psychological and social recovery.
Inconsistent enforcement of Supreme Court directives across districts.
6. Conclusion
Supreme Court jurisprudence in Nepal demonstrates that restitution and compensation are integral to justice in sexual offence cases, combining punishment with victim welfare. Courts increasingly adopt a holistic, victim-centered approach, considering physical, psychological, and social rehabilitation. Compensation can be paid by offenders or the state, with oversight from institutions like the NHRC to ensure compliance and recovery.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year (BS) | Type of Sexual Offence | Compensation / Restitution | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sita Devi | 2065 | Minor girl rape | Rs. 100,000, medical & counselling | Combines punishment & restitution |
| Ram Kumari Adhikari | 2067 | Workplace sexual harassment | Rs. 75,000, trauma & medical | Includes employer/state responsibility |
| Hari Prasad KC | 2069 | Rape & psychological trauma | Rs. 150,000, mental health & reintegration | NHRC monitoring emphasized |
| Manju Lama | 2070 | Kidnapping & sexual abuse | Rs. 200,000, state-funded rehab | State compensates if offender insolvent |
| Bishnu Maya | 2071 | Sexual assault with delayed investigation | Rs. 50,000, police accountability | State liability recognized |
| Ramesh Kumar Thapa | 2073 | Child sexual abuse | Rs. 250,000, education & recovery | Emphasizes long-term child rehabilitation |
RELATED Blog
0 comments